The goal in Dayz should be survive, not pvp

[Penny Sue 77]

The whole point is that there is no goal. It's a world in which you need to survive and can live however you like. BTW, the standalone does have mechanics being introduced to encourage team-play and there will be A LOT more to do, so PVP will become less appealing.

That's what really drew me in and many other people I talked to. There is no linear path to a goal. The only predefined goal is to see how long you can survive. The rest is all up to the players. This is the most liberating sandbox game I've played since Ultima Online's first few years. Yeah, it's been over a decade since I've seen a game like this!

All we really need are tools, props, and a stage ... the players can, and should, do the rest. Regulation and rules only if absolutely necessary (for example to deal with cheaters).

[wolfstriked 143]

The way I see it every town should have spawns more abundant the closer to its center you get and then have infected running in buildings and being drawn to the screams of other infected like they do to a weapon being fired.This way running thru towns becomes a very bad move but one that must be done at times if you really want to survive.This gives the feeling that its safeR to search the outskirts then to go deeper into the towns as it should be.And if you do get spotted inside towns you better have alot of ammo on you.This would make snipers waiting deep in the woods not shoot the poor sod who is trying to get something from deep in towns as they would then have to risk their own hides to go in and retrieve the loot.Better to wait for the poor sods to escape and then put a bullet in their heads!!

Hospitals should always be dead center of town.

Get rid of all farm animals and keep rabbits and add in deer as main food sources that you can hunt to force a gameplay of do or die.This will remove the get geared up and just live in the woods thing.Can't seem to catch a rabbit then its time to enter some towns sucka,Good Luck!! Maybe set traps that you can mark on your map to keep a supply of food going?And remove the bloodloss from hunger as this is allows this idea to work.

Great that the lakes and wells are being placed everywhere on map.But IMO Canteens should be very rare with players allowed to drink straight from water sources.My last character I was carrying around 5 canteens and never felt worried.I force myself to only carry one now and its better but I am constantly looking for water.Great to hear that canteens will be three swigs to empty as that makes a nice balance.

Forgot to add.....

We need more tools and not just a tool box.The game is sweet when you find that super important compass right?Its like FUCK YEAH just what I need.So make a wrench for engine repairs,a wire cutter to jump start vehicles and get thru barbwire,crowbars to crack open locks,tire irons to change tires etc etc.And no carrying on belt all the bull crap(axes,tool boxes etc) as the game needs the feel of decisions decisions of what to take or leave behind.

Edited October 19, 2012 by wolfstriked

[lukeman3000 5]

I think Rocket explained this well during his eurogamer expo powerpoint presentation. Where he said something along the lines of in the standalone he wants to really make it player vs world. Meaning it is harder to survive with added diseases, more areas where you can break bones, bad food etc. He also said it will hopefully round out the PvP aspect of the game which I agree with. If the game change so another player is no longer the biggest risk then I think PvP will decrease.

The player HAS to be the biggest risk. That is the whole point!

DayZ is not about zombies. It's not about the apocalypse. It's about player interactions. That's what truly makes this game worth playing. In my mind, the scenario, environmet, weapons, etc are all very important, but are secondary to this fact.

What makes DayZ so great are those tense moments when you hear a gunshot and wonder where the hell it came from. How many other people are here? Zombies are a given, predictable, and relatively easy to kill (as they should be). Players are not.

What the OP has the problem with are likely "griefers" -- people who kill other players just for fun.

Well guess what, that's part of the game. I don't like spawning and getting killed 10 minutes later, but that's the breaks. Now, I DO think that players should be protected immediately after spawning, at least for a period of time. I would give newly-spawned players 30 seconds to a minute of invulnerability -- enough time to at least have a chance at escaping spawn killers.

Edited October 19, 2012 by lukeman3000

[wolfstriked 143]

Well guess what, that's part of the game. I don't like spawning and getting killed 10 minutes later, but that's the breaks. Now, I DO think that players should be protected immediately after spawning, at least for a period of time. I would give newly-spawned players 30 seconds to a minute of invulnerability -- enough time to at least have a chance at escaping spawn killers.

Since they have ability to watch everyone then maybe a player can get warned after repeated offenses if they kill a person who spawns with no weapon?

[lukeman3000 5]

Since they have ability to watch everyone then maybe a player can get warned after repeated offenses if they kill a person who spawns with no weapon?

No, I would personally not implement any penalties whatsoever. DayZ is all about playing the game how YOU want to play it, and if you want to play the role of predator and hunt down noobs, more power to you.

However, I think that it would be fair to do something like give fresh spawns invulnerability for a limited amount of time. Plus, the spawn system should be intelligent enough to spawn away from other players.

Here's an INSANE, alternative solution -- new spawns get dropped out of a plane with a parachute and can land wherever they like. I'm sure this has been suggested, but that would be the shiz.

[wolfstriked 143]

^^I guess either way would work.

[Lights Out 141]

I think everyone basically touched on the subject perfectly. You get those players that just kill to piss you off but knowing this is a possibility adds to the tension which is great. Not to mention, the more worth that is tied to your character, the less you're going to trust people which is how it would be in real life. Some times it translates to shooting on sight, other times it is avoiding the confrontation all together.

I don't think you should ever put boundaries on the game, specifically PvP here, but instead make it worth while to team up instead. This will start by having tasks that are made more manageable in a group setting (surviving should be easier for a group, however it has it's disadvantages as well) and adding more uniqueness to characters (put more worth in the character themselves, not only what is in their pack; I believe a passive skill system is planned for the game). Lastly, with zombies expected to be an increased threat along with, at the very least, a decrease in the number of military guns, firing a weapon without any thought should prove more dangerous this time around. All these planned enhancements and added difficulty will help with the non-stop, pointless killing. Not to mention, as mentioned before about bases, there will be more to do. This will give people other things to do besides just killing and surviving.

On a side note, it baffles me how all of these posts by individuals that are non native speakers of English are always more grammatically correct than a large amount of those who have been speaking the language their entire life.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Lights Out

[noblebrutus@live.co.uk 26]

I don't really like the idea of skills, because I don't see how it would work in DayZ. What I'd rather see is adding more depth to the gameplay so that real life skills can be transfered in the DayZ world. For instance repairing cars could require some real life mechanic skills (Identify the broken parts by examining the vehicle). Surgery could require real medical skills to avoid an infection, or else you might do more damage to the patient. Using a weapon could require to learn how to clean it properly so it doesn't jam, etc....

All of those feature will require time to master properly, but it would be logical and obvious for people that are mechanic, surgeon, or have experience with weapons IRL.

Maybe it's going a little too far on the simulation side of the game, but hey DayZ is supposed to be hardcore isn't it ?

I think this is definitely where I would like the game to go... if you wanted to fix a car you'd need either RL experience or have taken the time to research it before hand ... manuals should also be found in game. Therefore instead of spawning with an inherent skill you may or may not have... you will only have 'skills' you actually have learned about.

For example, a while ago I can remember when me and my friend patched up our first car... only I however knew how to fill jerrycans and so that was my 'skill' which I then 'trained' my friend on how to do this and so he gained that 'skill' (knowing which object to fill the jerrycans from). This is a very basic pre-existing implementation of this idea.

Another slightly more advanced pre-existing implementation is with helicopters... they are somewhat hard to fly for a new player and when I first acquired a helicopter with two other friends one was our designated pilot since he had that 'skill' (from playing the helicopter tutorial).

All 'skills' should be 'learnable' for nearly any player, just requiring a little time spent learning it via tutorials, internet and in ingame manuals. Players would likely develop 'specialties' and lead to players having roles (a little like classes) within a group of survivors (ie one member could be the 'car-guy', the other the 'medic-guy', etc simply because that is the area they are best at within the group.

(ingame manuals could be found in appropriate places, for example you may find a car maintenance manual in a petrol station etc detailing how a car can be maintained)

I realise this may not be for everyone, as Bat said maybe it's a tad to much on the simulation side... but this is how I'd ideally make the game.

More on topic I agree with Lights out's summary (above). This 'skills' system may encourage general teamwork and cooperation also.

Edited October 19, 2012 by NobleBrutus

[ElysionField 7]

I see a topic changed here.

We are talking about "PVP should not be the main focus in the game", while someone change the topic to "PVP should not be allowed in the game" and they argue about it.

Well, no one here is talking about stopping PVP.

I don't mind PVP, I don't even mind KOS (I have been playing Counter Strike since it was in beta. I know how to avoid getting sniped) and I oppose putting any boundary at all.

I just don't want PVP be the main goal of the game, just like a typical FPS deathmatch.

Some people say, 'Dayz is a sandbox game. People can do whatever they want'

I buy Dayz because people say it is a sandbox game. The reason I complain is Dayz is NOT a sandbox game, since most of the elements in the game encourage players not in surviving, but to kill each other.

Imagine EA release a new game called Battlefield 3: the hiking stimulator. The goal of the game is to walk around, take pictures and interact with other hikers. At the same time, they still provide tons and tons of guns, armors, jets etc. I mean there are still hiking elements, as you can walk around on the hill. But with those weapon, I doubt it would turn into a nice hiking game, even the title says it is a hiking game. The title doesn't give you anything, the content does.

Now back to Dayz. Someone said " the goal of the game is to survive as long as you can". Well, this is exactly the same goal in COD, Battlefield, TF2 also. How long do you take to get supplies in order to stay alive? Couple beans, drinks, bandage, morphine/bloodbag... You can get all you need basically within half an hour to an hour, and your survival goal is reached. How many people are actually die from thirst or hunger? Now with all the bad ass weapons (one time I found total 15 clips of AK rounds in different locations within 2 hours. That basically tells me to start a war), while the zombie threat can be ignored, people are going to play deathmatch, just like the Battlefield 3: the hiking stimulator.

That is why I suggest Dayz should focus more in survival. When survival is a real challenge, by putting diseases, wildlife, threatening zombies just like in real life, it would be way more interesting. Of course there will be lots of PVP going on. I can imagine a survivor wonder should he risk his life and precious bullets on another player that might have a vaccine he needs. I can also imagine a survivor doesn't want to waste his bullet on a new spawn player so he can have a better chances to win against zombies, wildlife in the woods or another hostile player etc.

In real life, surviving is very hard, which I don't see it at all in Dayz. What I learn from biology is: in the jungle, death is normal. Alive is abnormal.

[asin (DayZ) 6]

All I'll say is that in the standalone, there should be a mechanic to make you value, not just your life, but other people's as well. Maybe a 5hr cooldown before you can respawn? Any ideas?

How about a script that renders ALL VOIP inaccessible while the game is running? Hehehe. At least that'll make you look for a partner even tougher.

Edited October 20, 2012 by asin

[ElysionField 7]

The player HAS to be the biggest risk. That is the whole point!

DayZ is not about zombies. It's not about the apocalypse. It's about player interactions. That's what truly makes this game worth playing. In my mind, the scenario, environmet, weapons, etc are all very important, but are secondary to this fact.

What makes DayZ so great are those tense moments when you hear a gunshot and wonder where the hell it came from. How many other people are here? Zombies are a given, predictable, and relatively easy to kill (as they should be). Players are not.

Well, that is exactly what a deathmatch experience.

When I hear a gunshot I wonder where it came from. Is that from a TS weapon or a CT weapon? How many people are there? I look at the top right corner, and I don't see any of my teammate/enemy got kill. Does that mean the fight is still going on?

Yes, players are hard to kill. You can always get a COD or CS so you can kill them all day long, if you really like this type player interactions.

There are tons and tons of FPS. I bought Dayz because I heard it is a survival sandbox.

Now I am so surprised that people actually want Dayz turns into a deathmatch type of game.

Edited October 20, 2012 by ElysionField

[ElysionField 7]

That's what really drew me in and many other people I talked to. There is no linear path to a goal. The only predefined goal is to see how long you can survive. The rest is all up to the players. This is the most liberating sandbox game I've played since Ultima Online's first few years. Yeah, it's been over a decade since I've seen a game like this!

All we really need are tools, props, and a stage ... the players can, and should, do the rest. Regulation and rules only if absolutely necessary (for example to deal with cheaters).

In order to become a sandbox game, tools, props,and a stage must be set up appropriately.

Battlefield 3 without an objective message and a scoreboard doesn't mean it would turn into a sandbox game.

[lukeman3000 5]

Well, that is exactly what a deathmatch experience.

When I hear a gunshot I wonder where it came from. Is that from a TS weapon or a CT weapon? How many people are there? I look at the top right corner, and I don't see any of my teammate/enemy got kill. Does that mean the fight is still going on?

Yes, players are hard to kill. You can always get a COD or CS so you can kill them all day long, if you really like this type player interactions.

There are tons and tons of FPS. I bought Dayz because I heard it is a survival sandbox.

Now I am so surprised that people actually want Dayz turns into a deathmatch type of game.

No, it's not exactly a deathmatch experience.

It certainly CAN be, or, you can lay low and keep your presence unknown.

You may choose to speak up over direct chat and see if you can form an alliance. Risky.

Or, you can find the threat and eliminate it.

There are many different ways to proceed, and there is no scoreboard. However, many players inherently feel threatened by other players because you have no idea who you can trust. You can trust no one. So everyone mistrusts everyone else and it usually devolves into shoot first and ask questions later. Not always, but usually.

Tell me how this would be much different from a real-life scenario in which resources were scarce and people were doing anything they could to survive? DayZ is very much a "survival sandbox".

[ElysionField 7]

No, it's not exactly a deathmatch experience.

It certainly CAN be, or, you can lay low and keep your presence unknown.

You may choose to speak up over direct chat and see if you can form an alliance. Risky.

Or, you can find the threat and eliminate it.

There are many different ways to proceed, and there is no scoreboard. However, many players inherently feel threatened by other players because you have no idea who you can trust. You can trust no one. So everyone mistrusts everyone else and it usually devolves into shoot first and ask questions later. Not always, but usually.

Tell me how this would be much different from a real-life scenario in which resources were scarce and people were doing anything they could to survive? DayZ is very much a "survival sandbox".

First of all, resources is not scarce in Dayz. Also, there is no actual threat in the game besides players.

Please read post #34.

[wolfstriked 143]

Imagine EA release a new game called Battlefield 3: the hiking stimulator. The goal of the game is to walk around, take pictures and interact with other hikers. At the same time, they still provide tons and tons of guns, armors, jets etc. I mean there are still hiking elements, as you can walk around on the hill. But with those weapon, I doubt it would turn into a nice hiking game, even the title says it is a hiking game. The title doesn't give you anything, the content does.

This made me laugh so hard!!!!!!

Just make survival hard and force the care bears to murder for beans and see what happens next!! AKA make everyone a bandit or force them to truly look into their own soulds LOL.

Edited October 20, 2012 by wolfstriked

[ElysionField 7]

This made me laugh so hard!!!!!!

Just make survival hard and force the care bears to murder for beans and see what happens next!! AKA make everyone a bandit or force them to truly look into their own soulds LOL.

That is my point! When you really really need a gun in order to survive, you won't waste bullets on a player that would give you nothing.

I think that is more realistic then using cheats like "giving new spawn players couple second of bullet proof time"

[enforcer1975 1111]

The player HAS to be the biggest risk. That is the whole point!

DayZ is not about zombies. It's not about the apocalypse. It's about player interactions. That's what truly makes this game worth playing. In my mind, the scenario, environmet, weapons, etc are all very important, but are secondary to this fact.

What makes DayZ so great are those tense moments when you hear a gunshot and wonder where the hell it came from. How many other people are here? Zombies are a given, predictable, and relatively easy to kill (as they should be). Players are not.

What the OP has the problem with are likely "griefers" -- people who kill other players just for fun.

Well guess what, that's part of the game. I don't like spawning and getting killed 10 minutes later, but that's the breaks. Now, I DO think that players should be protected immediately after spawning, at least for a period of time. I would give newly-spawned players 30 seconds to a minute of invulnerability -- enough time to at least have a chance at escaping spawn killers.

If it were it would have been named DayP and he didn't have to add the Zeds and have made the game into a Mad Max type of scenario, wouldn't he?

[Heiduk 265]

...

This is realistic as it would be the same if zombies really did walk the earth. No one would be nice or help you its kill or be killed. Someone would kill you for a pear of shoes or maybe a nicer pack to carry food in. The shit would hit the Fan and it would be a blood bath.

I'm sorry but this is demonstrably not true. I challenge you to provide historical examples where society collapsed, whether from famine, disease, war, natural disaster, whatever; and the primary response of the population was to go around killing each other. More common is for warlords and stong groups to arise then use murder and fear as a weapon to subdue and control the population for their benefit. These groups may go to war with each other but even that is somewhat limited because it's incredibly risky for small groups. Real people do plenty of horrible things to each other but rarely are they as untargeted and random as they are in DayZ. The only historical situation I can think of that comes close to how people behave in DayZ is the 1980 NM State Prison riot, which was a pretty unique situation. Even in that example much of the violence was targeted.

The way I see it current player behavior is understandable and driven by several mechanics in DayZ.

• Death has few consequences.
  
• Keeping other players alive has little value.
  
• The only tools we're given are for killing other players.
  

Hopefully we'll see adjustments to these mechanics in the standalone and player behavior will adjust organically to something a bit more realistic.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

PVP can be eliminated to make it nearly or impossible to survive alone. Just moar and/or harder zombies and make them spawn bit out of the towns, big amount in towns and shitload in those bigger towns/airfield where you could get some higher end gear. This would force people to work together to get those :beans: from markets.

[Shag 90]

didnt read the whole thread so im sure this was said, but it is too easy to survive at the moment, hence the boredom pvp.

i'm sure this will change with standalone eventually.

[thecrawly 0]

Many wise words have been said, but I still want to add some:

I think the trick is to make games that span across several dimensions, thus setting fuzzy goals even though it's a sandbox game. We have a deathmatch kind of game in a ai zombie enviroment. Survival is to sketchy a goal to even be called fuzzy, and should be regarded as part of the deathmatch game. The lootchain is focused on pvp equipment, and kind of reinforces the fuzzy goal of dominating the places where said loot can be found. Possibly the future hold sustainable bases, which would provide more of a fuzzy endgoal.

Zombies are scary at first, but after you learn how they work pose less of a threat. I think making them harder to kill might be a good way to go. Keeping it traditional, headshots might be considered the only way to kill them, even though this would assume some kind of crossbreed from Romeros undead zombies.

Other things that might make grief-pvp less attractive:

* Make human contact beneficient by introducing the "sanity meter". Being close to another human should be comforting just like in real life. Low sanity make your character cackle with glee and mutter to himself or something similar. Comfort should also be a factor. The warmth of a fire, good food and drink should all be beneficial. Getting wet and cold should be very bad and possibly make you sick, dishearted and slow. Comfort is hard work to create on your own (or should be).

* Enable adrenalin when you get in fight with other survivors or zombies. A buddy to share your experience with would be beneficial here.

* Increase the loot respawn time and make high-end military weapons really rare. In real life loot would run out, forcing survivors to start producing fresh good or control areas where larger amounts can be found.

* Add a combat point command enabling someone to add a fading marker at wherever they are pointing. Only visible to the people close. This would benefit people working in groups in terms of tactics and make them more dangerous.

* Provide fuzzy goals that require cooperation. It might be building and constructing, or simply places so infested with zombies a lone griefer will have trouble getting there.

* Make cities so infested with zombies that it pose a real challenge for anyone getting in and out alive.

* Bit of odd idea, but a possible solution might be to introduce ai-griefers. Effectively bands of ai survivors that roam the countryside, looting and killing. Make these bands sometimes have access to cars and trucks.

[Sutinen 635]

I agree on the weapon part, I mean who the fuck would use a .50 cal rifle with rare ammo on zombies, when it does about 8 times more damage than it's health? They are completely designed for PvP. I know their main use is supposed to be vehicles, but trust me, it's not. It's about as easy to carry and use as a smaller rifle, which makes it the perfect weapon for PvP.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Sutinen

[gamerdude71@googlemail.com 1]

This is always said, I agree with you, but i want to add some points.

PvP should stay if it has MEANING

i.e. If you have an axe, And your starving/thirsty/dieing, and im clearly decked out in Gear and have a bunch of stuff? By all means...try to rob me, take what i have. I would

If you are a lone wolf, and you see a bunch of tents guarded by 3 people, and you have the drop on them? sure! Call out, tell them to lay down and turn away or be shot, if they move? kill them.

Robbing people, surviving, All of that. Great!

what needs to stop is NOT PvP, but rather, Pointless "LULKills" Pvp,

for example

-You spawn in, someone snipes you off of spawn

-You are clearly harmless, trying to run AWAY from town, Newbie finds gun, Newbie shoots you in back of head, passes your corpse (clearly not to loot it) and "Lol's" on his way by.

-Someone asks for help, You are friends for a good half hour, Youve been through shit together, survived the thick of it, they get bored or Antsy and kill you and take your shit and leave.

So in essence, The PvP doesnt need to change, The People do...I cant imagine Anybody wants to play a Pvp Shooter with an enormous map, an eating function, and a thirst meter....

Because in reality? If you turned PvP off, DayZ would get very very very boring Extremely fast, You would be able to walk around, Find food, find water, find guns, kill zombies.

thats it.. go play Left4Dead

but if you leave it as is, and try to prevent Mindless grief killing....Sure! im all for it.

(and yes, Pointless killing with the intent to Annoy others does happen) no matter how much some of you extreme die-hard fans try to say it doesnt.

I prefer survival, I love that bandits will roam, I love getting robbed, being forced to surrender my things and sent on my way to parts unknown...

Anyway, tired and rambling, but my point got across i hope

*and also* ZOMBIES should be harder, a bigger threat, and a big part of the game so if someone does want to shoot on sight? Their gunshot should call a horde, causing them to have one of the most epic firefights with a player, and fighting off zombies at the same time. calls for some epic times right there!!

*last edit* Noooooo on the "wrestler can tear shirt and scare zombies thing" seriously? Even the most "childish" Version of the zombie virus, whether it be Infection, rage, virus, disease, death, necromancy, ritualistic, mind control drugs, etc. No "wrestler" is going to be scary enough to stop the Raging undead, or the Rage infected living......really....

*final final edit* yeah..no on the cheerleader, Nobody would stand in a zombie apocalypse cheering on someone in catchy tune...it just doesnt, and wouldnt happen....

Watch The Walking Dead

[terrvik 2409]

Watch The Walking Dead

Please don't, it is crap.

Anyway there is a difference between being able to kill other players and a term like pvp. Pvp makes it sound to competetive in a gamey way, which it should not be. But never should there be restrictions on killing.

[Penny Sue 77]

I'm sorry but this is demonstrably not true. I challenge you to provide historical examples where society collapsed, whether from famine, disease, war, natural disaster, whatever; and the primary response of the population was to go around killing each other. More common is for warlords and stong groups to arise then use murder and fear as a weapon to subdue and control the population for their benefit. These groups may go to war with each other but even that is somewhat limited because it's incredibly risky for small groups. Real people do plenty of horrible things to each other but rarely are they as untargeted and random as they are in DayZ. The only historical situation I can think of that comes close to how people behave in DayZ is the 1980 NM State Prison riot, which was a pretty unique situation. Even in that example much of the violence was targeted.

The way I see it current player behavior is understandable and driven by several mechanics in DayZ.

• Death has few consequences.
  
• Keeping other players alive has little value.
  
• The only tools we're given are for killing other players.
  

Hopefully we'll see adjustments to these mechanics in the standalone and player behavior will adjust organically to something a bit more realistic.

You bring up some great points and I would love to see more tools to build with in the sandbox.

There will always be a significant portion of the playerbase who's entire point to play is to kill other people. I've seen this in other games; especially UO. The have zero interest in ANY non-pvp mechanic or tool given to them. You can not convince them to use these tools and play the game in any other way. If you force them through rules and game mechanics they will just stop playing. A lot of these players are desirable! They make the game more exhilarating, unpredictable, and risky. They seek out PvP because it's the only "real" challenge. They hare here to compete with other players and derive no satisfaction from "out smarting" or "beating" some inanimate virtual object like a zombie.

Then a sub-set of those players are griefers. Their entire reason for playing is not just to kill people but to make you rage IRL or preferably rage quit and punch your keyboard. Again they have absolutely no interest in non-pvp mechanics or tools unless they can be exploited to piss you off. If you force them to anything else other than PvP and grief they will stop playing. We do not want these players; their entire existence is to ruin other peoples gaming experience.

Obviously these are broad generalizations and many people fall in between. I left out players who enjoy both PvP and PvE or just PvE. I think the game already caters to them fairly well.

So how do we keep PvP centric people interested and engaged but discourage griefers? They share a lot of characteristics.

For example if you make it absolutely necessary, if not required, to cooperate with other players in order to acquire equipment necessary to participate in PvP effectively you will drive away both player types. In fact you may even drive away most good-natured PvP'ers and be left with griefers because griefers don't necessarily have to kill you to grief you. They will use any means necessary to make you rage IRL.