dekartz

Really? Lets list some of the big ones. The Road: Where was the safe zone in that? Mad Max II: The refinery could arguably be called a safe-zone but it starts the movie being attacked by "bandits" Mad Max III: Barter-Town is the best example of this idea and it's only maintained by militaristic might. Not some magic "no one pulls out guns" rule. Night Of the Living Dead: Not only was that house constantly under siege, but the constant threat of violence amongst the survivors is what made the movie good Dawn of the Dead(Original): Mall was in fact safe, until it was raided by "Bandits" Dawn of the Dead(Remake): Zombie baby. 'nuff said I Am Legend: The "safe zone" in the end of the movie acted more as a macguffin than anything else. And the main character maintained his safety by locking every one and thing out. Not to mention it somewhat disproves the idea that "You can't survive by yourself" main character does so for years on end. For the rest of his life if you refer to the book. The Walking Dead: Their "safe zones" have a tendency of being overrun.

So, because you are finding it hard to interact with people, this concession should be made? People already have varied and interesting interactions in DayZ, all this would add is an area where certain interactions are "limited" because the magical sky-lord has decided you can't be hostile in this area or respond in kind to douchery. And it serves no purpose. Trading? You can do that in the mod right now, you just have to be careful, stay aware of your surroundings, and probably bring back-up. Having a chat with someone? Same thing. Really, all adding a "safe-zone" would do is give people who are "bad" at the game a place to be "bad" at the game in relative safety and think they're "good" at the game. It serves as nothing but a crutch. Stop looking for the easy way out. Stop blaming the game for your deaths (unless it was a glitch, then blame the game) Take some responsibility and think "What could I have done better?" That's the biggest advantage you have in this game. You can and should learn from every death.

I believe the intended effect was to point out that this could've been posted to another one of those threads rather than starting a new thread about what's ultimately the same exact thing.

And so this morphs into "Amuse me or die."

I've had encounters like this. On the airfields no less. It's weird because generally I assume and accept that if someone spots me before I spot them near any military spawn, they're going to shoot me in the face.

I equate pants with banditry. If you're wearing pants, you're probably a bandit. Shirts too. If you're wearing a shirt? You're probably a bandit. And shoes? EVERY BANDIT THAT'S KILLED ME HAS BEEN WEARING SHOES. A man in shoes killed my cat and at my dog.

How would I have dealt with the situation? Probably did something stupid and got killed. What do I think about your handling it? You responded to both situations in a reasonable manner, three well-armed guys probably aren't well-armed by accident. You had the element of surprise and got them to scatter rather than engage. As for the guy punching you in the head? Well he was punching you in the head.

There's something skeevy about pushing your idea every time someone mentions they got killed Just sayin'. I dare say I'm super-sayin'

This is somewhat on topic. But a few of my friends have found a brilliant use for blood-bags We all take blood from ourselves and carry our own blood-bags on our person. Thus, if we need health in a pinch? Just give your bag to a friend and have him pump that blood back into you.

Dammit, now you went and TOLD everyone.

The Garand's key flaw: The "HEY I'M OUT OF AMMO RIGHT NOW" sound. Also, the whole En Bloc clip system would be an issue if you ever lost said clip. (They're not exactly plentiful nowadays) I may be wrong, but without a clip the weapon can't be fired, no?

Generally, in any game, the person who puts more time in is going to win. Making military loot-spawns rarer just means that there would be a larger divide between those who have time on their hands and don't. That said, I'm all for making military loot-spawns less reliable/rarer. But I think the best way to do that is simply t continue adding more things that could spawn there.

No I was quoting sandbox because it's a vague term. Also the heartbeat/insanity/etc have already been decried by the devs. Not to mention that in GTA, police responding to your actions has a logical basis within the game. It's not really a punishment so much as more to do.

Wait. What prevents whoever gets a lockpick from server-hopping inside the armory? Two lockpicks and you can have all the military gear you want with even less risk than in the mod (Far lower risk of spawning in front of someone as they'd have had to found this item with an astronomically low spawn-rate to have even entered the area where you're spawning). Also, I would consider the danger of most military spawns as a sort of "natural barrier" to getting military gear. At least on a populated server: If you're going to Balota or NWAF or NEAF or even Zelenogorsk, people are far more likely to shoot you in the face if only for the fact that you may be about to or may have looted what they came there for.

Arguably the protector cases could fulfill the whole "I'm holding this because I want to trade" idea.

I'm very much against forcing or coercing players to interact with each other in a certain way (In DayZ at least). IE: Systems that tell players that if you don't join a group, you'll go crazy. Or something along those lines. And given some of the responses that you've received here, even fewer of them are willing to read books. But I don't completely dismiss the idea of books having some intrinsic value other than kindling and/or toilet paper. Perhaps tie some "endgame" crafting recipes to books? (even that seems a bit gamey) Something such as making gunpowder or smoke-bombs or something that it wouldn't simply be common sense but requires knowledge of chemistry or engineering or something along those lines. It would add value to the books and/or the players who have them (yeah, you could gun them down for the recipe-book but you run the risk of damaging it and it being useless anyway) but doesn't necessarily force players to look for and/or use them. High utility accompanied with astronomically low spawn-rates (that or needing multiple books on how to make certain things)

EA's other business practices are irrelevant. You're the one opting to rent a DayZ server. You're subject to their rules and regulations. Don't like it? Don't rent a DayZ server?

You had trouble finding food? In a survival game? You don't say?

The sandbox is kind of the point. There will never really be a defined "goal", just goals that you set for yourself.

I've been thinking. How is immediately knowing how an encounter is likely to go going to encourage interaction? Bandit-Band? Shoot (This is essentially KOS) No-Band? Probably a bandit, Shoot (Still KOS) Hero Band? Probably going to shoot me because of all the no-bands I killed and/or just a bandit in disguise, Shoot (Still KOS) Hero Band meets a hero Band? Awkwardly try to help each other despite both of us obviously being well geared enough to help others? Also, heroes and bandits aren't two groups in direct opposition with one another, as your idea portrays. They're merely two styles of play that the games mechanics allow. As for a "For private servers" thing, fuck that. The devs have no obligation to make tools for you to use on your private server. Get off your ass and code it yourself when modding is available.

Perception of body language is not an infallible system in real life, thus portraying it as such in a video-game would ultimately be "gamey" Also, while the details of how a particular player would be labeled for their actions are different in the various posts, the core concept is still the same: A mechanic in the game that labels the player based upon their actions (and the perceived morality of those actions) in game. Whether it's skins, hats, bandannas, or subtle expressions the goal is still the same.

The majority of this post was irrelevant to the prior statements. Which were mostly in regard to rules for servers. You commended someone who thought the idea that server-owners having to abide by a TOS set by the company that makes the game to be unprecedented, and now you state that the rules need to be more concrete. It appears to be an inconsistency in your views or a somewhat unexpected change in them. Unless of course by "the rules need some tweaking and clarity" you in fact mean "The rules should be geared towards more what I believe they should be". In which case, we return to the original topic of debate. The key is to set up a system that allows server admins an agreeable level of control without allowing them the opportunity to use this control as an exploit for them, their friends, their fellow clan-members, etcetera. The rules as they stand now are vague because it is impossible to predict every situation that will come up, thus as situations come up the rules will conform. Still, as I understand it, there are stated circumstances within the current server-hosting rules that state that a server-hoster can not kick players on joining to loot farm or to prevent other players from joining. This in conjunction with the rule that disallows private servers states rather clearly (to me at least) that you cannot kick players for the sake of allocating specific slots to "preferred players".

Regardless, it gives you terms and conditions for running a ranked server. And denotes that your own server rules cannot be in contradiction to these terms and conditions. It is the example that was requested, as it was requested.

The existence of "auras" is arguable and their perception is largely subjective. Also a mugshot is of someone after they've been caught and hauled in by police, a largely unpleasant experience. However a common assertion of serial killers has always been: "He was such a nice guy" or "He was so quiet" Plenty of nice people look like douchebags and plenty of douchebags look like nice people. My proposed system allows you to make judgments based on quantifiable observations and something that is ultimately fallible (a requirement for such a system). What you have proposed is a more subtle version of something that had been proposed and rejected in the past.

So basically, you want a system to do the kicking for you. It doesn't change the end result nor does it change the impression made on the person kicked. It just allows for you to make room for players who contribute to your server thus believe are entitled to a slot over someone who does not. A lack of limitations on said slots also opens up such a system to abuse, as previously stated. If you could come up with a way that both gives you the power you wish AND precludes abuse, I would be happy to hear it.