Debate on the fundementals (please)

[hoik 415]

This is an attempt to decide on the what are the fundemental requirements for a ballance of freedom and responsibilty in the world of DayZ.

Currently the lack of responsibility is makeing the decision to murder a non-decision.

Some may argue that in a apocalypse responsibily goes out the window - I would say that irresponsable individuals would not last long because this is a suicidal impulse (x10 in a survial situation), and other survivors primal instinct for survival wouldn't tolerate them. Irresponsable communities would simply self destruct.

I support all styles of gameplay, even greifers since they are inevitable.

If the responses could be restriced to a sentence or two I think it would help us get to the core of our ideas, making them as concise as possible.

For me a top 10 issue is:

"How to give individual players value that directly impacts the value of the group (on a server) as a whole."

The reason: As humans our value to eachother is measured in many many ways, we also have a value as a whole - in day Z players value is measured in loot, and there is not global value. If individual actions negativly impact on the group, the group will naturally react against it.

Im not looking for solutions, but the right questions that we should be asking.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

Authenticity vs. Realism is a big issue.

People are taking realism and putting it way out of proportion. there should be a basic understanding between the two and that the game is base on Authenticity not realism.

I think forcing someone to do something is also stupid. people think the only solution is to X is Y, but there are 23 other solutions out there they could use.. Get creative!

Restrictions on game play should be preventent at all cost. If it's 'Taking away the makarov', 'spider senses when you're near a bandit', or if it's PTSD when killing someone

These are not good options for the game, It will push it towards more mainstream fuck up games rather then being it's own beast.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

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.

[hoik 415]

@ Bullfrog

RE: Debate on the fundementals (please)

Authenticity vs. Realism is a big issue.

"People are taking realism and putting it way out of proportion. there should be a basic understanding between the two and that the game is base on Authenticity not realism.

I think forcing someone to do something is also stupid. people think the only solution is to X is Y, but there are 23 other solutions out there they could use.. Get creative!

Restrictions on game play should be preventent at all cost. If it's 'Taking away the makarov', 'spider senses when you're near a bandit', or if it's PTSD when killing someone

These are not good options for the game, It will push it towards more mainstream fuck up games rather then being it's own beast"

Thanks for replying - but how does this impact on the inbalance of freedom and responsibility:huh:?

Id like to steer away from issues with other players opinions.

[proxzor 3]

You can't force someone to do something. But what you can do is make the zombies harder, so people will HAVE to group up.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

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!

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

The whole meaning of murder is out of place for me and that's where the problem to understand dayZ comes. So killing a person in this mod is a 'murder' instead a 'frag' because players have a background, a past life. Well, perhaps not, it's a game after all, what's my responsibility as a player: just play and get fun out of it. Game let me do it X, I'll do it if I see if fits.

Perhaps I don't explain it well enough but it's so clear in my mind...

[hoik 415]

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.

Yes I 100% agree - but the problem is that freedoms are being abusing to the detriment of the group. I would also like to point out that mechanis = rules :).

Do you agree that there is a inbalance of freedom and responsibiliy? If so, would you be willing to trade some freedoms for a sence of responsibility?

[Blay Wayne 31]

more roleplaying and armchair psychology babble. spare us

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

Thanks for replying - but how does this impact on the inbalance of freedom and responsibility:huh:?

Id like to steer away from issues with other players opinions.

I don't know if I understand, but I'll try to explain.

take the Makarov issue for exp. They remove it, it forces players to be stealthy. thus taking away their freedom and responsibility.

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. Nope, I'm forced in to playing stealthy

If I wanted to play Splintercell I would, but I want to play DayZ, and DayZ is about freedom (or at least I thought)

[hoik 415]

what's my responsibility as a player: just play and get fun out of it. Game let me do it X' date=' I'll do it if I see if fits.

[/quote']

Nicely put, even if I only agree on a very basic level. The problem I have with this attitude is that it encourages rule making because players wont take any personal responsibilty for their actions - you want limitless choice you should have limitless responsibility.

---

more roleplaying and armchair psychology babble. spare us

Im just trying to create some constructive debate.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

"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.

[dogsbd 12]

You can't force someone to do something. But what you can do is make the zombies harder' date=' so people will HAVE to group up.

[/quote']

I keep seeing this claim, harder zombies will force groups. I just don't believe it would work that way.

---

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!

Exactly.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

I keep seeing this claim' date=' harder zombies will force groups. I just don't believe it would work that way.

[/quote']

It wont, there needs to be more to it then just harder zombies

though harder zombies will be a slight push towards the right direction.

and it shouldn't be so much harder that it gets rid of the lone wolf.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

what's my responsibility as a player: just play and get fun out of it. Game let me do it X' date=' I'll do it if I see if fits.

[/quote']

Nicely put, even if I only agree on a very basic level. The problem I have with this attitude is that it encourages rule making because players wont take any personal responsibilty for their actions - you want limitless choice you should have limitless responsibility.

Perhaps a sandbox where everyone carries a big gun and some potentially interesting loot just derives in mindless shooting. Looking beyond that is very complicated, I really think any game requires rules. Translating real life freedom into game world freedom is kinda tricky.

I just came across another player, I did what I usually do in these cases: shoot first. The guy had some blood bags, and I needed a transfusion. Some trading could have worked there, a missed chance to interact? perhaps not. He was near a few tents, an organized looter maybe. I don't think he would want me alive near all his stuff either, to be honest.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

I think the conversation is a good one to have, but I also think it's in the wrong place

Taking up room for other suggestions that might/might not be good

...should be in General Discussion

[hoik 415]

"more roleplaying and armchair psychology babble. spare us"

Spare yourself dullard' date=' 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.

[/quote']

Your right about mechanics not = rules :dodgy:, but small rules like the one mentioned do allow choice, so id argue they do allow freedom but try to direct it.

"If I don't have a makarov at the start' date=' 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."

[/quote']

I didn't post this ;)

[nikiller 122]

hi,

@strategos: I agree dev should include more authenticity mecanics where you have to think before making an action like stamina, weapon jaming and so on...

cya.

Nikiller.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Hoik i know that was directed at bullfrog.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

"If I don't have a makarov at the start' date=' 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.

[/quote']

You're right, we can't. but we can come to a basic understand of what will/will not happen. for exp

since food isn't as rare as weapons PvP will be promoted (I assume)

why risk going in to a zombie infested land when you have a 50/50% chance of a unarmed player having food.

and players can't melee, so we can assume their death count will increase by 10fold. The Makarov is compensating for the lack of melee attack.

why take away the only way to defend his self.

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.

[Blaise 1]

I think it is interesting to compare DayZ with The Walking Dead, regarding the incentive/turn-offs to kill/trust people.

(wall of text incoming)

Comparison 1, Distrust

If you look at The Walking Dead, you see that protagonists try to protect their own group. Not just against zombies, but also against other groups and individuals. In both The Walking Dead and DayZ, other people cannot be trusted, which is a motivation to either avoid or kill other people.

I think distrust is very well implemented well in DayZ.

Comparison 2: Perception of Bandits

In The Walking Dead, protagonists may have a gut feeling about other players they're encountering. perceived "bandits" in The Walking Dead talk and act a certain way, often doing or saying things that we think is immoral in a non-zombified world. We judge them and tell ourselves: "I can kill this person, because he is bad".

This is missing in DayZ. Some kind of spider-sense is being implemented, and I think this is a good implementation for now, but there might be better ways to do this, that holds regard more for all the subtleties involved. In The Walking Dead, protagonists (and sometimes the viewers as well) are often proven wrong when applying the bandit label.

Comparison 3, Recklessness

In The Walking Dead, there are loved ones to protect; the children and women. These loved ones give the stronger protagonists a will to survive and an incentive to act carefully and diplomatically, because they're needed for the survival of others. It also prevents some of the men from 'going rogue'.

This is also missing in DayZ. I'm don't think we should protect a CPU character, but maybe this could be implemented some other way. Because if you're only surviving for yourself and you are able to respawn when dead, what incentive is there not to take risks? Only the loss of items.

Comparison 4, Morale and accountability

In The Walking Death, even though killing is sometimes necessary, killing other people is still considered immoral. The children learn from their parents that killing is bad. Even though the world is fucked up, and killing might be a save thing to do, they still learn to do the "right" thing. This is occasionally holding back the grown-ups from killing.

Also missing in DayZ. There's no reason whatsoever to the right thing. This is a game, people know they're playing a game. Even though there's some immersion, not much is holding you back shooting other players. You don't have to account for your actions to anybody, except to yourself.

And that is not working, because it is a game, you know you didn't really end someone's live permanently: people can respawn.

---

You cannot easily make people stop doing immoral things. Maybe a back story would help a little, or if the moms of players would sit next to them while they play the game ;) (that would certainly stop me...) I think this needs a lot of thought because it could lead to interesting things. Punishing bandits vigilante-style should not be the only solution. There should be some factor of shame involved.

With the current setup, it will always be a computer game where other people will keep playing Battlefield style, collecting all the cars and weapons, killing other people. Because once you know how to survive, you need challenges. DayZ cultivates murderous and immoral players. The more you get shot, the more your trust in other players dissolves. After a while you start shooting first and join the Cherno DeathMatch. Alternatively, you can choose to avoid all player contact, but that gets boring quickly, because zombies themselves are not really a threat.

---

TLDR; I think we can make this game more interesting for everybody if DayZ implements factors that affect player's killing and trusting, looking at The Walking Dead for inspiration. I don't know how exactly, but it's food for thought.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

"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.

[hoik 415]

You cannot easily make people stop doing immoral things. Maybe a back story would help a little' date=' or if the moms of players would sit next to them while they play the game ;) (that would certainly stop me...)

[/quote']

Lol! This is so great :D !

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' date=' but it's food for thought.

[/quote']

Yes - and its the question that counts. Personally I think a list of questions that cover the core issues of the game would be more useful to the developers than a list of answers.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

"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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

Idc if people are harmed or not, I'm not against bandits either. I care about people defending them selves. though I don't fully understand the 1st statement ;)

a shit storm on the forums =/= a negative on game play, People are just trying to find a solution. some more passionate then others lol even I have jumped in on this topic

I believe there shouldn't be any punishments for killing (even small ones). There should be a way to build bonds, emotional ties to other players.

even if you could have a emotional tie with someone you met in the game that became a friend.

those bonds would tie over to strangers. since there will always be that connection with the other player.

[frankhertz 2]

Why are we crying before an idea is even tested? Such bad sports, I mean testers. Just wait for the patch that has the no makarov and then play a few dozen lives before whining.