Debate on the fundementals (please)

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

"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.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

I'm gonna call Fox news if you continue associating simple game actions with terms like 'immoral', 'murder', etc ^^

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.

Really? Distrust is actually the easiest thing to implement, or do you trust strangers by default? The thing with TWD is I really don't know why survivors are that belligerent. Well, writers like drama as flies like shit. In real world, big disasters make people help each other most of the time. I guess it has to do with our conscience, we have to live with whatever we have done. So that's why I don't call game actions a murder, any virtual world action is insignificant except when money or unusual factors get involved. Basically, something that links real and virtual worlds.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

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

[/quote']

Not crying, having a debate. (like the tittle implies)

---

"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 ;)

Valid argument lol

I like to think there are other ways to get a that emotional ties

It's not worth giving up our only way of defense for.

[Jono (DayZ) 1]

I'm *very* new to this, in fact I only bought Arma II last weekend and have played about 4 hours of DayZ so far.

I was drawn into it by various videos on youtube, and articles on rockpapershotgun and I thought "Awesome - gotta get me some of that".

But in those 4 hours my enjoyment has been ruined by hackers and people being dicks (Killing me in the face for no reason (which is fine)). But c'est la vie. I guess that's the approach I'll be adopting.

I don't have any emotional tie to my little guy - Other than "Yay I now have cool stuff" - I don't think that I ever will have.

I did like the idea of it being a little bit The Walking Dead-esque, in that it would be much better to group up to survive. All I need to do is avoid packs of zombies and other people, once I have my survival equipment and a pond near by.

People in TWD stuck together because as individuals they'd be weak; a lot weaker than sticking together, except for Shane or Daryl, maybe. Yet they still died.

They had a reason to survive and to keep some form of humanity about them, only killed in self defence etc, as a last resort.

I'm not saying I want the game to change - it's not my game. It's Rocket's and I'm really looking forward to finding out how he implements his vision, and/or how it changes.

I just ... I dunno - a small part of me just wishes there was a better alternative than kill or be killed, no matter what. If I need a blood transfusion I'm going to die. None of my friends play the game yet, so really I can trust no one. And they can't trust me.

I have an Alice pack and it's just a beacon saying "If you know what this is, shoot me on sight - it contains 20 slots of awesome". In reality it just contains a bunch of ammo and some flares for guns I don't yet have. Maybe some would be handy to others, but they wouldn't know either way until they were prying off my blood-soaked back.

I don't want anything forced on me - any way to behave... Other players will punish me for doing them wrong. I just wish they gave me a chance to prove I don't have to be hostile. And vice versa.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

"It's not worth giving up our only way of defense for."

Not worth giving up our only defense ? Your not giving it up it's being taken away lol The stuff you start with was given to you as a design decision and now its being removed. I personally think we should lose the backpack as well.

How else do you develop emotional ties other than spending time with someone and talking to them. Having no guns facilitates that in quite an elegant way.

What are you planning on using that makarov for anyway ? Attracting some more zeds? Killing that guy that sniped you from half a mile away ? If your not sneaking past Z's when u just have your starting gun your doing something wrong! And now you can lose them by running away from them. The only other thing you can use it for is killing other players.

[dogsbd 12]

Its possible that after this initial stage they may stick together after one of them has found a gun.

Unless the one that found the gun was hungry and wanted the other guys beans.

[joikd 25]

I'm gonna call Fox news if you continue associating simple game actions with terms like 'immoral'' date=' 'murder', etc ^^

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.

Really? Distrust is actually the easiest thing to implement, or do you trust strangers by default? The thing with TWD is I really don't know why survivors are that belligerent. Well, writers like drama as flies like shit. In real world, big disasters make people help each other most of the time. I guess it has to do with our conscience, we have to live with whatever we have done. So that's why I don't call game actions a murder, any virtual world action is insignificant except when money or unusual factors get involved. Basically, something that links real and virtual worlds.

Real-world example of SHTF (minus zombies):

In the Yugoslav wars in the 1990's, a city was surrounded and cut-off for a year. The only aid came from US air drops, which turned into the Hunger Games. People trusted nobody except for family and very close friends. "Good" people went "bad." Movement by day was suicide. Killing was constant. Gangs were a huge threat. People did whatever was necessary to survive. Things were DayZ-like even without the zombies.

Google "Selco" "Balkan" to read the experiences of a man who lived in that city. There is so much information on his site that directly applies to DayZ. It should definitely be a reference for anyone making suggestions, or even for Rocket himself.

[Blaise 1]

I'm gonna call Fox news if you continue associating simple game actions with terms like 'immoral'' date=' 'murder', etc ^^

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.

Really? Distrust is actually the easiest thing to implement, or do you trust strangers by default?

Well, maybe it was not implemented because distrust is natural. But the distrusting feeling and nature towards strangers, that works really well for me. DayZ would not be this fun if you could just approach other people without fear.

However, the level of distrust might be too much in DayZ because people are often playing immorally.

(There, I used the word Rocket didn't want to use! I don't think using this word forces people to play a certain style. I think we can agree that killing innocent people is the wrong thing to do, even if it's for your own survival)

The thing with TWD is I really don't know why survivors are that belligerent. Well' date=' writers like drama as flies like shit. In real world, big disasters make people help each other most of the time. I guess it has to do with our conscience, we have to live with whatever we have done. So that's why I don't call game actions a murder, any virtual world action is insignificant except when money or unusual factors get involved. Basically, something that links real and virtual worlds.[/quote']

I think it's different per situation. What you see in The Walking Dead is that there are all kinds of groups that naturally distrust each other. In The Walking Dead, food and medicine is scarce.

People helping each other, I think that's happening when communities are already formed. Also, there's often one common enemy, like a flood or ethnic group.

In DayZ, it's different. It's a scattered world, you seem to have lost everything except for some beans and cola, resources are scarce, and you don't have ties with the people around you. Yes, the zombies are a common enemy, but they can be dealt with. The Bandits are a much larger problem, but you don't know who the bandits are so you cannot easily fight them as a group. Even if bandits were identifiable again, there might be potential bandits in your own group. This distrust prevents large groups from forming.

I think there would be potential for larger communities like in The Walking Dead when people can form home bases of care bears (;)), and there's some way to detect bandits. This way, if you are with a large enough group, you can fight off bandits, while some people go out of camp in small groups to get fresh supplies. But I think people playing DayZ are currently not organized enough to organize something on such a large scale. Also, it would require different zombie behavior that will require you to shoot zombies that are trying to break in.

[underscore 12]

... take the Makarov issue for exp. They remove it' date=' 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

[/quote']

Hear, hear. Remove NVGs and it forces players to play in the dark which takes away their freedom and responsibility. If I can't see another player during the night then 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. I demand NVGs on respawn!

---

Its possible that after this initial stage they may stick together after one of them has found a gun.

Yeah, and it's possible all the zombies will start holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"...