Strategos (DayZ)

Its fine to tell people that their opinion is wrong. But as none of us can tell how we would react you cant really use a counter argument saying we would def crack under those strains. As I mentioned African refugees show how resilient people can be. And your sweeping judgements about how they got so tough don't really stand up to scrutiny either. You don't have to look far to find evidence of people from the western world finding themselves in similar harsh situations and the wide variety of reactions to said circumstances to quickly see that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to this stuff. I'm not saying I'm john Rambo or a super soldier i'm saying don't tell me what I am. I shit myself playing this game and I love that. You can rant all you want but your argument is just as flimsy as the ones you are decrying.

Do we really need to have a personal argument ? The actual issue at hand is quite an intersting one think.

"even if you could have a emotional tie with someone you met in the game that became a friend." And you cant deny that two player without guns who meet and are in shared danger will probably have more chance of bonding that two that meet with guns and shoot each other on site ;) "(Today 02:24 PM)Blaise Wrote: I think we can make this game more interesting for everybody if DayZ implements factors that affect player's killing and trusting. I don't know how exactly, but it's food for thought." this is exactly what im talking about, not set rules but pressures. Say what you want about the bandit skin, all it was was a visual indicator of how many people a person had killed. That's much better than "friendly modes" or arbitrary "being round people makes you sane" rules. Im really interested i some of the other even more extreme ideas that will provide new emergent behavior. You cant go by mass opinion either. Lets face it not many people would have voted for insta / perma death in a game, but now they are playing it they love it. And much Kudos to Rocket for doing it.

"The Makarov is compensating for the lack of melee attack. why take away the only way to defend his self." Well firstly you were saying people are abusing their freedoms to the detriment of all then complaining that removing one of the things they use against each other is restricting their freedom. Second. With the new patch you can avoid zombies, and you can already avoid players so you no longer have to have a gun to survive. Add to that the unknown dynamic that will occur when unarmed survivors meet and interact. You want to stretch potential then lets try it out. "And I disagree with the bandit skin removal causing a negative effect. I think it's open doors to new possibility that hasn't been stretched out to it's full potential." No its had a negative effect, look at the shit storm on the forum of people trying to find solutions for the resultant KOS. Something else will be implemented to replace it like Rockets current heartbeat suggestion. Which is just a more subtle audio , rather than visual bandit label. In the end it is a game and there is no REAL reason not to kill people. So Although i didnt like bandit skins I think there probably should be a way to tell who is a complete griefer. I =f someone has gone down that road no amount of team play mechanic will stop them, those people should be flagged in some way, im talking about your "sit on a roof in cherno and snipe 26 people a day" kind of player.

See thatns not true bjardnick. You know there's a person behind those pixels who has put in as much effort as you have , and will probably be fucked off if you kill them. That's where griefers get their pleasure they know they are pissing people off. But not only that before the bandit skin change , I felt guilty if i killed someone without a bandit skin, and justified when i killed one who had a bandit skin. Maybe it was a bit two dimensional but it def evoked emotions. Now I have to just kill on sight because I know what's what will be done to me. There is much less emotion / morality involved. it has been pared back to purely kill or be killed.

Hoik i know that was directed at bullfrog.

Economy emerges from supply and demand. The game is ripe for an economy you don't need to artificially implement one. In theory if meet someone and I need a blood transfusion , or some food , or ammo. I would trade with them. Why doesn't it work? Because its easier, safer and cheaper to shoot them and take what you want.

"more roleplaying and armchair psychology babble. spare us" Spare yourself dullard, jog on. "I would also like to point out that mechanics = rules" That's not true. For instance to use my earlier example. Being in a group makes you less stealthy and more likely to end up in a gunfight with the Z's. this isn't a rule but something that emerges from the mechanics. You can make game mechanics that are simple rules like "if you don't stay near people you go mad" but that's not what i'm talking about. Mechanics that blunt don't allow freedom. also you state " but the problem is that freedoms are being abusing to the detriment of the group" then argue for "If I don't have a makarov at the start, I don't have the freedom, the responsibility to pick rather a good choice, or a bad choice to promote my life based on my playing style." Id pick a standpoint and stick to it. Neither you or I can predict how such a change will effect the dynamic of the game. We can make guesses , but the only way to find out is to try it. No one liked the bandit skin but removing it has had a negative effect overall on the game.

I see that suggestion alot RKO I even quite like it but there's two sides to that coin. Teaming up gives you a load of advantages but it also makes you much more likely that one of you is going to draw agro and start a shit storm. Its possible that making the zombies harder will actually encourage lone wolves? I mean I know I can sneak in somewhere on my own. But whenever we do something as a team we end up killing all the Z's. Make the Z's harder you might actually be penalizing groups!

Its a case of putting mechanics in place that encourage thought. We shouldn't forcing paths on people or telling them how to feel but allowing emergent behavior. Its a case of finding the right pressures. People not having guns is a good pressure. we don't know if it will work yet but there are several possible outcomes, some of which could be excellent. People being unable to kill each other early on could result in people sticking together and communicating more. Its possible that after this initial stage they may stick together after one of them has found a gun. I think the biggest problem we face at the moment is peoples preconceptions. Everyone seems to want Dayz to work like other games. The pontificate about realism and survival and keeping it difficult. But they want to be able to play with their clan mates, and communicate globally without radios. What people seem to overlook is that the things that make Dayz great are things they probably would have rejected out of hand if someone had suggested them in another game. So why stop now, I think we should keep adding extreme mechanics that force people to play in ways they don't want to.

"No, whats the point of looking for better gear if it destroys after one use. Totally unrealistic" And gear that you can use forever without it wearing out ? Even under zombie apocalypse conditions? Is that realistic? Equipment that survives a grenade blast undamaged? Realistic ? I mean seriously what sort of argument is that.

I can see how this would play out. Spawn with gun, sit on coast, shoot the guys that spawned with map and food, profit. Soon, everyone starts spawning with a gun and killing each other. Square one.

Good news indeed, great work. I died two times myself. There is something that came out of the whole hacking thing though. It was pretty exciting driving around seeing destroyed buildings with smoke billowing out. Trees shattered and ruined. hearing people getting killed by tanks. It makes me think that the occasional unforeseen event could really spice things up. Obviously not some c**t teleporting around dropping bombs on people. But something more constructive could be really interested.

I do not support these ideas. (cant be bothered typing out my reasons again.)

Does ACRE stop people from just using TS normally though ? "Metagaming is going to happen no matter what. It's rather ignorant to try to force your desire to have none of it on everybody. That's why no side/global is a bad choice, and it should be disabled on a server by server basis. " Isn't it rather ignorant to just say removing global chat is a bad choice because that's not how I want to play? What if (i'm not presuming to know just supposing) Rocket wanted the game this way. you guys come along and say "no way ill do what i want ill just phone my mates so fu" who's being ignorant here? Have you considered that maybe the game might be better if you immerse yourself in it and stop meta gaming? You've joined a game which is breaking out of conventional gaming paradigms (and enjoy it because of that) , then your saying "screw that ill play it how i want". I'm not saying this is the right decision or even possible, i'm just saying its food for thought. maybe we all owe it to Dayz to go with it and see where it takes us , and help that process , rather than digging our heels in and clinging to all our old gaming habits? CASE STUDY: Me and my mate were on mumble playing this and we heard a group of three guys chatting in direct chat , and it was fucking incredible, we could overhear their plans, hear which direction they were in , we stalked them , snuck up on them and in the end killed all three. It was one of the greatest gaming experiences I've ever had. But afterwards we were discussing it and saying how unfair it was we were on mumble and had a huge advantage over them. i'm pretty sure the whole game would be improved if everyone used direct chat. It would add ALOT to the game. Getting snippets of conversation in towns, suddenly realizing your near a group of guys having to try and whisper so they don't hear your team. Spying on people and over hearing where their hidden base is. All kinds of stuff.

You cant just say Arma doesn't do Melee. Even if its hard to do well in a mod Rocket works for BI, the game will most likely become a standalone entity at some point. The mod has already generated millions for the company. There's no reason they couldn't divert a few coders and alter the core game code. Id love to be able to sneak up behind people and knock them out and steal there stuff without killing them.

"I actually think that if the equipment damage were restricted to shots that hit the backpack specifically that this could work. Shots to the body would not effect the contents, regardless of calibur (not realistic, I know- another game-ism for the sake of maintaining playability)." Well as not all of your gear is in your backpack..... For instance, everything in your inventory is in easy to reach pouches, belt , holster, vest pouches. Binocs and NVG have their own slot presumably around your neck or some such ? And you usually have something in your hand. Hell a high calibur round could even go through you and into the backpack.

lol good post. You forgot to put the link in your sig though!

It may be totally impractical. But its a nice idea , and obviously in the spirit of the game. Why else would Rocket have removed global chat? A quick look at the Windows Core Audio API suggests that you should be able to get control of the Mic Volume for instance. I'm sure there are ways to say Mute it unless direct chat control is held down in game or something. http://www.computercabal.com/2010/11/mute-microphone-from-c-on-windows.html

I wondered if the game could just read the the microphone input anyway and attract zombies if you were talking. You would only transmit in game if you were pushing press to talk but if you used a third party voice chat and were talking away you would draw agro within a certain range. :)

Thanks Krack appreciated. I was thinking about this Mark, and realised it was probably a feature, thanks for highlighting it. I actually kind of like it now I think about it more :) Added a few more suggestions to the list as well. I cant find the original non lethal weapons thread I'm guessing it might have been lost to the hack.

Try this http://dayzmod.com/forum/search.php

"Im not sure any of my statements negate what I am saying in any specific post. " You don't seem to be sure about alot of things which perhaps is why you don't actually seem to have a coherent argument or a reasonable rebuttal to any of the points I've raised. "People post about PVP. You think that adding a mechanic that encourages human interaction isn’t directed at limiting PVP? Come on, it doesn’t need to say PVP in the title for you to see the undercurrent of what is being suggested. " No but we were discussing the merits of a specific mechanic just saying "it might help fix the pvp issue" doesn't counter any of the points I raised. "All mechanics artificially push the player to do something or another. This is a game so you need something artificial to tell you what you need to do. I don’t have a red flashing food icon that blinks when I need to eat." No but you have a feeling about it, everyone needs to eat, and they feel that that. The limitations of the game mean we need an indicator. Everyone bleeds when shot. The game tells because in real life we would just know through our nervous. This is obvious and universal. mental health is not a standard human drive. It varies from one extreme to the other in a pretty unpredictable way. You cant tell me I want to be around people, any more than you can tell me im going to develop acute paranoia or depression if im left alone. No one can argue that all people need to eat , drink and bandage themselves, but we can certainly argue about our state of mind. The game creates emotions in the player, you don't need to make the screen blurry to tell them they are scared and go and take some pills. That doesn't MAKE me scared or alone. Whats the point in making the game scary, making the game affect you emotionally, then slapping a number on it and telling me things that might be the complete opposite of what im actually feeling? "I cant imagine that there is anyone who would say that grouping up isn’t a buff. Being in a group should have some negatives and so should playing alone. People already group up in this game but it generally happens between people that are already friends and who use some sort of 3rd party voip. Unless I am mistaken most of what is being discussed here is encouraging random players to meet and work together. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences to walking around as a group." Yes there advantages to working as a group and disadvantages, these are created by the mechanics of the game, this is what emergent game play is all about. Not saying "YOU GUYS HAVE TO STICK TOGETHER OR YOU'LL GO MAD!". its a heavy handed 2 dimensional, unrealistic solution to a complex problem. Look at say, Vietnam you had guys that went catatonic, guys that weren't affected much, guys that handled it just fine but couldn't adjust to normal life afterwards?. People are much tougher than we can really appreciate in our western lives and can endure incredible hardships. You just have to look at african refugees to see that in action.

This is essentially the same as granting people multiple characters, which removes your attachment to your one unique character. You can sit on you home server doing your thing and playing properly then join multiple other servers and grief to your hearts content. In games like EVE online players would have multiple accounts ,and even the nicest guys would often have alt characters they used for pirating and griefing. You let people have more than one character you will see more griefing.

"All I will say is this. Half of the threads in this sub-forum are about PVP. I personally dont really feel like its a problem because I dont run around the big cities standing up and sprinting. It seems to me that the Devs want to encourage interaction and also limit immediate Shoot on sight. Most likely to do this, they will have to introduce something that is more of a mechanic that a true to life element. Including some almost universal psychological effects might just be the way to nudge people in that direction. " "Lets face it, grouping up in itself is a buff. If anything there should be consequences for being in a cluster like being more visible to Infected. " Im afraid your arguments arnt really standing up. Firstly : You cant just bypass points someone makes by changing the direction of your argument to stopping PVP. Secondly: Your arguing for a mechanic that artificially urges people to group up. Then arguing a different point by suggesting grouping up is a benefit on its own and should be penalised in some artificial way! In one swift stroke your debunking your own argument for needed an artificial method to get people to socialise. You dont need one because your absolutely right being a in a group is an advantage of itself. On top of that your suggesting a punishment for this by making groups more obvious to the undead. missing the obvious fact, that being in a group DOES make you more noticeable to the Z's. If your in a group your much more likely that one of you will draw agro. Its quite masterfully done! I'm impressed.