Honest Bill

Yeah i see your point now.. I'll think about it and come back to you haha

But couldn't they make it so anyone can take items out, but only one person can put items in?

Couldn't they just make it that only you can only store items in your own tent?

You're forgetting that an unarmed player in Dayz can not use melee attacks.. They are forced to be non violent because they literally have no other option.. Also, it's just a game and the consequences for killing are non existent.. I don't think we could find too much helpful to add to the gun control debate.. Not without some monumental stretch of logic anyway.

Fair point.. That's a good idea about item degradation.. That would fit perfectly i feel.. I'm not saying i don't like the idea of tents themselves, i just don't like the fact you can go back and get your stuff again with your new character.. If the loot you owned wiped on death, it wouldn't be a problem at all.. Just attribute ownership of a tent, and when that person dies the loot is wiped, or at east on a short timer, so people could still loot it I love how everybody's thinks they can glean some kind of insight in to people's characters over something like a computer game or a small and ambiguous portion of text.. I'm getting cursed out for being a coward and a carebear in this thread and in yet another thread i'm regarded as a treacherous bandit.. I've never even played the game so... I was actually just making a point about Chopper.. Just not the best person to cite that's all haha.

"I once met a man who was paranoid about dying, so i shot him" Chopper's logic is unassailable...isn't it

Doesn't anyone think that bandits might actually love this change? because now, people will actually let their guards down to people with a survivor skin.. It seems to me like the bandits will have some major fun with that mechanic.. Hence why you might see them asking how to increase their humanity.. They just want to get close to other survivors and gain their trust until it's time for the big pay day. Expect to see lots of new youtube 'infiltration' videos and insane amounts of bitching going on.. I'm actually coming around to the idea.. If only there were a way which didn't force you to wear particular clothing. Maybe your face changing would be better...

This idea of 'punishing' other players is a bit odd.. Unless of course you can define what constitutes punishment. The idea should not be to 'punish' players who kill other players, but to make them make more logical decisions which will have a consequence. If it is more conducive to their fun and survival to kill, then that's exactly what they will do. If they can find the same doing something else, they may do that instead. Whether you like it or not. player killers will remain in the game.. They need to be there to add the vital conflict that any narrative (player driven though it might be) needs to be interesting. they add the necessary bad guys to a game which would be a bit boring without them. Now the devs should focus on making being a good guy more attractive and beneficial.. Then a natural equilibrium can be achieved.

Wonder what Freud would make of this...

Fair point.. But in real life of course, it is up to the other people to ensure there are consequences for antisocial behaviour, such as imprisonment or death penalty, or plain old revenge.. whatever it may be. The thing is, that the game does not really facilitate players to take any meaningful action against said players.. As has been noted several times, if good guys shoot the bad guys, bad guys will run back to their tent to get their equipment back and come back. Game worlds have to be fundamentally different from the real world in certain ways// If you want to stop people killing other players (or at least curtail it a bit) you will have to give them resons not to. There has to be something for them to fear, or something else for them to do.. Preferably both.

I agree that you definitely shouldn't be able to keep your gear after you die. It defeats the whole object of 'perma death' it removes any significance to death.

Couldn't agree more.. It's just a point i often try and make, a lot of 'old skool' role players are totally fine with barebones and see anything which might even resemble a quest as bad thing. And they are totally comfortable with pretending.. I know pretending is what everyone who plays the game is ultimately doing, but the world must give you some kind of feedback. It's al very well saying your character is doing this or that, but if he isn't actually doing it, then it's pointless.. At lest that's my view.. I know the role players don't all feel the same as me. I agree that a lot of clues and things to be found throughout the world add tons of replayability, and that's the beauty of it, the developers only have to set up the framework for the story, but the players decide what that story is.. And like the real world, sometimes people with conflicting narratives will clash.. thus adding dynamic and emergent gameplay. I agree though, no 'quests' that we don't instigate, initiate, and make our own decisions to complete/

I don't know if i'd agree with that. The game could easily provide a few more tools thst players csn use to facilitate their imaginations.. For instance, the whole fixing up a vehicle idea is a very good one.. It's loosely structured in that there are certain specific things you need to accomplish it, but what sets it apart from other games is that a players motivations for his actions belong entirely to himself. There is nothing wrong with adding more loosely structured and entirely optional content, basically just giving the players more ways to interact with the world.. Your reasons for doing so, and your choices being your own are what i think defines the 'sandbox' genre

What i think this all boils down to is a lack of suitable conflict.. Itäs natural for people to want to survive in the game, we have their motivation, and we have antagonists, what there isn't is enough hardship in the game. No story is ever successful without the protagonist having some kind of conflict to overcome that is genuinely difficult for whatever reason.. If people are surviving too easily in this game, it's because the game is making it too easy for them. You can't tell a player that their motivation is survival and then expect them not to try to accomplish that.. You must then, place restrictions on how he is able to do that.. Overcoming hardship and strife is not something anyone would ever actively seek to do, It is something people are forced to deal with, and because of their accomplishments against the odds, people feel more satisfaction because it was difficult to achieve. people will take the easiest route all the time. It's natural, so it is up to game designers to make sure that the easiest route is hard enough that it is satisfying. If there were only one can of beans in the entire game, then getting a can of beans would be a massive achievement and sense of accomplishment...now people feel nothing when they find one.. The act or gameplay content hasn't changed, just how hard it was to accomplish. It's all relative really.

I'd say that's because people are more worried about what the finished product will be like, and are more opinionated about the design decisions and overall direction of the game's development, than they are about things which are obviously not intentional 'features' and clearly won't be purposefully added to the final game.

Fair enough if it's easy to avoid, but in that case, is there not a worry that it will lead to more elaborate banditry? People will simply help out every unarmed player they meet to get humanity, then when they see them later with a nice weapon, stab them in the back for it... Actually that sounds pretty intense, and could lead to major mistrust even between groups.. Maybe it will be a good idea. And you're right that of course it remains to be seen how it will pan out. I'm by no means against trial and error, that's what an alpha is for, i just want them to be careful that they don't misunderstand the underlying causes of certain social phenomena. It just seems a little bit black and white to me, and it seems couter-intuitive to the spirit of allowing social structures to form by themselves, as it seems to create two factions right from the start and imposes it's own social structure. I would just urge them to consider that they may have misdiagnosed and are attributing the current state of social interaction to something incidental. As many people have already stated.. Bullets being harder to find, and zombies being harder to evade, will probably go a long way to balancing out the community. The character skin may very well be completely irrelevant.

That's a fair point i suppose.. How about it works only at a certain proximity?

Haha, well it is well known that customisation lends itself to a better attachment to the game world. And you say it can't won't exist, but why exactly? I intend to get the standalone game when it comes out, and i want to discuss possible issues with the game before it's release so that everybody gets the best possible experience.. Why does it bother you if i'm 'neckbearded' (That's a new one to me btw) about what my character looks like.. Why is it so unacceptable that i might want to personalise my avatar? I could of course go and play WoW if i wanted, but i don't, so that's completely irrelevant isn't it?

I take your point, but who wants to actually take a bullet before they can fire back? i mean if bullets start whizzing past your head, i'd say you ought to be entitled to return fire and still retain your humanity. Also, as many have already noted, bandits will just get a bit more creative and now when they have some humanity they will actually be trusted more even though they are still a back stabbing bandit.. It's still an imperfect system in my view.

But how does the game know who a shot is aimed at.. For instance i could aggro a bunch of zombies to your location, wait till you start shooting them and the game could interpret that as you shooting at me..Or if you need to actually take a bullet first.. It seems most guns kill with one shot right?

I agree. so it seems that the humanity system might need to be refined a little.. and there needs to be a way to distinguish between acts which are 'humane' and acts which are 'inhumane' The problem is, how does the game discern your intentions from your actions? How does the game know if you killed in self defense? or just for a laugh.. Is it more or less humane to kill a 'bandit' than it is to kill a 'survivor' Is it inhumane to shoot on sight if the target is a bad guy.. The only things i can think of are determining who fired first, but that comes with it's own problems which would be exploitable.

Ok, so someone in another thread suggested that you might get some kind of tense ambient sounds or scary music when you mouse over someone who has killed.. What's wrong with that idea? That would allow everyone to wear whatever they want, and people who are scared of bandits can still tell who they are and who they should trust. I don't see any problems with this idea, and it seems like it would be win/win. I don't know if it's technically possible, but i'd imagine it is.. Any problems anyone can see with that system?

Because i don't want them to take away PVP.. And although i'm sure you're right that nobody cares what I say. But you must realise that just as few people care about your opinion, Especially when you lack basic reading comprehension or the common courtesy to participate in a real discussion.. I'm confident that if someone's looking for feedback, they will at least take my opinions seriously.. What do you think they'll make of yours?

I think it might be nice if they were to add hiding places to various places. Like cabinets or wardrobes, large chests or car boots which you can climb in and hide.. Imagine if you are looting a house and you open up a wardrobe and there's a bandit hiding in it.. That would make you jump..

Ok, but is it really much of a choice if people keep shooting at you and you need to kill them to survive? Does the game make any distinction between an inhumane kill or a kill in self defense? accidental kills? How can the game determine you didn't kill the guy out of fear for your own safety? Why should someone have to wear a bandit mask regardless, and the same applies to the survivor skin.. Why shouldn't someone be able to wear the bandit costume if they want to, but they just don't like to murder people because it goes against their character? Either way, i still feel that it's a valid point, being able to wear what you want does create a stronger bond with your character. Why should people be forced in to skins they don't like? regardless of how they play.. Surely there is a better way than this to make people PVP less.. I hope that once a few more things to do other than PVP are added to the game, they will remove this system in favour of full customisation @super67 Fair enough, but i still feel it creates a forced dichotomy good Vs evil type situation, which i just don't feel should be the game's job, i feel it should be down to players to decide social structure.. As far as telling whether someone is good or bad, i have watched quite a few vids on Youtube, and yes i can see that it's a problem at the moment to communicate with other players.. I would very much urge caution though.. You just might find, that once the game has enough things to do beyond PVP at the coast, you know things which add an overall sense of purpose and group mechanics etc, that the problem may well just cease to exist, and it would be foolish to assume that the game is better because of this system, without analysing how the full game plays without it.. I think this problem can be mostly solved just by making surviving on your own much harder, and making ammo more scarce, these would both go a long way to stopping players killing other players on sight. And alsom i watched quite a few videos from back when bandit skins were in, and everyone still seemed to shoot on sight regardless of skin. I do agree with you on the fact that it is hard to emulate someone's behaviour in the game world, and you don't have access to all the sensory information you have in the real world.. But i still think forcing people to particular skins is counter intuitive to a gaming experience which aims to attach as much significance to staying alive as possible.