Huntra

Both those measures are far to extreme. As a survivor I want to exist in a world of both bandits and survivor otherwise the fun is gone. I don't want true safe zones because that ruins the fun of the game. All the game needs is better comms so survivors can get to trust each other a bit.

Again you crit me with a wall of text. I have very little to say except a) you don't know what ideology means in an academic sense of the word. b ) you don't understand what a zero sum game is, a game where co-operation is irrational because there is no way for us to both win the game, if I let you win +1 then I lose -1 c) You seem think in-groups are always exclusive, totally ignoring how in groups come to exist. This game does not even faciliate the emergence of in-groups in game. In-grouping is only rational in non-zero sum circumstances. Furthermore I'm not stating society created war in that so called ad-hominem, I'm stating that anyone who believes in the war of all on all as the natural human condition is equally indoctrinated as someone who believes in the noble savage and the social constructiion of war. And yes I'm arguing for 2), the motivations for human interactions are principally selfish, its unrealistic if everyone KoS because in reality a variety of difference social structures would emerge in the real world which is not a zero-sum game. I never said humans are primarily moral and wouldn't kill each other, I'm saying that this game forces KoS in a way that is unrealistic because many humans are to some degree moral, and this isn't expressable in the game. The only time you see it in game is when unarmed players aren't KoS'ed, which is a rule many players play by, even though that strategy doesn't maximise utility as even unarmed player carry painkillers and bandages etc. Finally you shouldn't listen to the psuedo-scientists because there is a good reason why in physics if someone says we can prove this within 80% certainty they politely tell them to leave before they phone security.

I would be willing to trust people, but the direct chat is too short range right now so I don't bother. Right now if I spot you at a distance I'll hide in a bush and watch you until I see where you are going and then readjust my route accordingly. If you startle me at close range I will open fire, if you say duck behind cover when you see I've spotted you and we're close enough I might try and arrange that we both walk away alive but virtually nobody answers so you'd have to be quick to respond. If I hear gunfire I always run away from it or scout it from a safe distance to see what is going on then move away from the area. If I get into a situation where we've both spotted each other but are too far too engage I'll tend to run away but then camp a bush to see if you're following me and if you do shoot you asap. I figure this as about as friendly you can be in DayZ right now, and its a lonely existence being a surivor unless you can find other people with similar attitudes. I don't want to KoS but I will at close range because I can't risk losing my alice bag map compass morphine etc to you. I think if this game had better communciation I'd be willing to build trust with people. Sit 1km apart and have a chat, do some rudimentary trust exercises like trading by dropping items at the mid point and stuff. I think this would make the game a lot more fun. You could build trust with people then shoot them in the back of the head, get betrayed and stuff it would be a lot more engaging.

Man all the people who say that KoS is just the game and thats what makes it fun should go back to call of duty. Noone wants to make the game friendlier or more forgiving, but with no in game interactions at all these days its just not fun, its just like some type of weird free-for-all arma game that happens to have zombies. When I got this game I wanted to take people hostage and stuff, but you can't because its Kos world right now.

It's not as hard as you are making out, if you're prone the zombies barely see you. If you're in an area a player hasn't visited in a while all the zombies will freshly spawn just for you so no suprises. As a noob the best way is to play very cautiously. When you spawn don't spend too much time on the coast, if you're near some buildings prone in and out fast to grab what you can and head a bit in land til you're in the treeline. Use a map like this http://dayzmap.com/ land earn to recognise your starting location from the shape of the coastline, this can be hard at first but after a while it's easy. Head a bit north and just loot some deer stands and barns and stuff, when you've got a weapon try a town for some food and medicine. Don't head directly north from cherno or elekro espesially on high population servers as you're just asking to picked off by a bandit. Once you've got food drink and medicine and some weapons you can basically go anywhere on the map. Knowing your location is a huge advantage in this game. You can plot routes that don't take you too close to hubs of activity. You can get your direction from the sun for christ sake you don't even need a compass. Find yourself on the map from landmarks and just follow the safer areas its easy.

Cba responding to everything you said. Suffices to say you are wrong on many accounts. In group morality is morality nonetheless, what you say about greek tribes misses the point. Spartans and Greeks treated each other honourably in war, and outside fo war respected each other, they used violence to create authority that while not causing peaceful co-existence allowed at least some structure to the violence . This isn't about dispelling some pretend old left notions of noble savages or tabla rasa. It is clear that a game where everyone inside the game (excluding people on skype / ts) kills on sight is a zero sum game. It is also pretty clear that the real world has never been a zero sum game, even in times of absolute chaos, its not realistic to think limited cooperation would never emerge inside a world with limited resources and a high probability of death. If you don't see that you're just as indoctrinated with ideas about the human condition as people who say modern society invented war. More importantly everything you say ideaology is is wrong, ideaology exists in a non-empirical space of interpretation without which we cannot give political significance to anything at all. Everything you say about fanaticism is nothing to do with ideaology in the proper sense of the word. Imo you quote / reference too many pseudo-science mongers who pervert science to make sweeping claims about human nature. You don't seem to understand the difference between humans being inherantly good or evil and how rational self-interest drives social structures to emerge. Tribes teaming up, even with the intention of killing others, creates a moral structure, honour amongst theives. The game doesn't even facilitate any of this considering you have to go outside the game to find people who won't KoS, and that's why it's unrealistic.

I was having a great early game run, got myself enough medical supplies food and soda to get me to the north west corner of the map with no trouble. Was using a Lee Enfield but didn't have a secondary weapon. Found a really easy to get to barn on my way but north was like great! Checked it out and found a double barreled shotgun. Had the genius idea of putting my Enfield in my bag to see if it fit so I could carry two primary weapons. It was so dumb, rifle just disappeared, only had a few shots for the shotgun and a whole bunch of rifle ammo. Raged so hard :(

Trust me, I know history, even proto civilisations have morality. Those tribes who were ruthlessly slaughtering each other had forms of morality. Things that were taboo and would mean being ostrachised or killed by your clan. Fighting between clans is not a sign of amorality but of war. The fact you automatically assume morality = absence of violence shows how into the mindset of our decadent society you are! In Ancient Greece is was fine to rape and pillage non-Greeks settlements, but if you did anything remotely harmful to a fellow greek, or even a slave belonging to a greek, it could cost you your life. Being a psychopath and simply being violent are very different things. Killing a man for another tin of beans when you're not even short on food yourself is something a psychopath would do, he sees two options, get extra beans and not get extra beans, so he kills the guy simply because he'd rather have the beans and doesn't see any downside. This is because he lacks empathy with his victim. Sure a zombie apocalypse would probably bring out the psychopath in many people, but people don't just start being psychopaths because their lives are in danger, that's not how human beings function. Almost all societies have had taboos against killing without justification. Also going to add that Steve Pinker is just a political puppet who trys to bend science to invalidate ideaology, just putting that out there xD

I think the biggest problem would not being able to hear gunfire. How much zombies will "see" and "hear" you is indicated by a meter represented visually on the screen. But the main way to stay out of the way of, or hunt other players is through the hearing the gunshots which gives you their direction as well as their proxmity through the game sound. If you are deaf their could be a guy trying to take shots at you with a sniper rifle from 800 yards away and you would be totally oblivious so being deaf is going to put you at a disadvantage sadly.

I don't even know what we're disagreeing about. As you say these things won't stop KoS play and nor should they!! KoS is a core of DayZ gameplay. I just think everyone can agree that there should be more to the game than KoS, it should be about 50% KoS at least, the other 50% should be situations where players actually talk, even if one does end up killing the other. There should definitely be more interaction between player inside the game, both friendly and unfriendly. Hell I'd love it if next time I get shot the guy bandaged me and tryed to torture me and spoke me a bit before finally shooting me in the head. That would actually make dying fun rather than getting sniped over a hill for beans and being back on the coast moments later.

That's why its fun. Its dangerous,. Obviously won't it's not meant to, its meant to make an alternative to doing that though. So there will be at least some variation from kill on sight Not true, there are loads of solo players and people who are forced to be solo because they have no irl friends who play DayZ and don't want to join a clan. See above post. Aborting needs to end. It does because it creates more fun interactions between players. Why kill a low geared player when you can take him hostage and make him run around aggroing zombies for you while you loot certain areas. Why log out when their is a chance your captors will free you if you obey them and aborting means death anyway. All you need to do is make it so when you log out you get a 20 second timer and if you move or do an action it cancels the timer. If you log out by shutting the game your character should stay visible and killable for a while after.

Yeah the aborting has got to end. You should have to be out of combat and stand still for 20 seconds to log out. If you alt-f4 in game your character should just lie around in the prone position for 30 seconds afterwards before it disappears.

The problem with that it creates two sides, and that isn't realistic because morality isn't black and white. For a really good game you need to be unable to know who to trust and therefore who is bandit and who is friendly.

Because realistically most people aren't bear grills, and also most people would go mad after months of solitude. Sure you might choose to be a hermit, but most people won't and aren't capable of that lifestyle. In real life if you see someone walking in the woods you need to take him hostage and interrogate them before you kill them. In real life you would probably have to find survivors with similar values to you and be with them to survive.

Man you sure do talk some crap! You seem to think you either have a kill on sight society or hello kitty adventure land playground for children! Your question is irrelevant because you think I'm talking about making the game "friendly". I'm not. There is nothing "friendly" about talking someone hostage, nothing friendly about teaming up with someone saying you'll split the gear then shooting him in the back of the head, there is nothing friendly about infilrating a "safe zone" then stealing all their supplies. I'm saying that a game that solely revolves around killing each other is boring. There needs to be two sides to everything. If everyone is jaded like you and says there are no friendlies then its just a one-dimensional game. And there are loads of mechanics that could fix this. Improve in game communications - introduce public frequency walkie talkies than anyone can hear within a 3 km radius so you can make SoS calls and arrange trades before you get into shooting distance. Create benefits to not killing on sight - make it so only 75% of the loot will drop off a player if you kill them. The only way to get 100% should be to get that player to hand over the loot of his own accord somehow. Create sitations where you need more than one player - make actions in game like fixing certain things or getting certain advantages only possible with 2 players so you either need a friend or a hostage. Create more ways to you can benefit from keeping players alive. Make it easier to check someone has no weapon, introduce remote controled explosive slave collars that can be put on people and detonated at a 200 yard range. All this stuff would make the game a lot more cooperative and fun without being "friendly"

Yeah this is true. The game should make it extremely hard to trust anyone as would be the case in a post-apocalyptic environment. But right now the game does not facilitate anything but kill on sight players and some people seem to think everyone should just follow this mentality. That's like removing the very best bit of the game. The human struggle in the face of adversity is gone.

Your question doesn't "stand" because your question is completely irrelevant. Nobody is saying make the game "really friendly" as you say. So what does it matter what it would be like if the game was "really friendly"? As you say everyone but new players shoot on sight because its the only was to play the game currently. You get sick gear and then all their is to do is kill each other. That is a boring game buddy. All there is to the game is getting your gear and then going out and shooting people until you get shot yourself. You might as well be playing any old FPS. When their is no friendlyness at all the fun is gone because you already know everyone is your enemy. There is no advantage to in game player interaction or being friendly at all right now. The fun should trying to figure out who you can trust in a world gone to hell, and this requires people to have to cooperate at least some of the time otherwise everyone just forgets about friendlyness and shoots on sight as is the current situation.

Walking Dead is great, but if you notice surivors in walking dead don't necessarily just snipe each other as soon as they see others, there wouldn't be much of a story there if this was the case. You have good and bad people and many more that are various shades of grey. The interactions between people the in Walking Dead world are complicated and strained. You can't trust anyone. DayZ could be a lot more like this and a lot less like a free for all first person shooter.

Maybe our decadent civilised morality, but I doubt that many would turn completely psychopathic. Even tribes 3000 years ago had rules like don't kill someone just to take their beans when you've got perfectly good beans in your backpack.

You should probably talk to a psychologist about that! Sure if it was a real zombie apocalypse I'd kill people. Anyone who tryed to mess with me I'd shoot not qualms. But I'm not going to around shooting everyone I see just because it will increase my chance of survival. I'm sure people would do what you say but not everyone has the same personality.

Well Genius, you can't assume everyone would throw morality out the window if there was a zombie apocalypse.

Did I say that? Watch any post-apocalyptic film, the interest is in how people interact under adverse circumstances. Players don't interact in this game, they just try and kill each other. Its a damn shame.

This is actually why the game is bad. An oversized FFA Call of Duty server is not a good game. In a real post-apocalyptic society the point is you can't trust anyone, but you need other people to survive. This is what makes it interesting, how people interact under these circumstances. Do they form exclusive gangs? Do they try and create some type of order in the chaos? Do they enslave others? None of this actually happens in DayZ becuase the only value of other players is the loot on their back.

Yeah we've all seen the cool stuff that "can" happen. Shame it almost never does because of the poor in game communication system and the average player's attitude.

OP is correct and all you guys saying its realistic are retarded. Shoot on sight makes the game a bad pvp loot n shoot. You're either in a bandit clan or in an awful version of FFA Call of Duty. Shame this could have been a good game with cool stuff like hostages and elaborate deceptions and betrayals etc. But as it is it's just not.