Basic (and controversial!) Tweaks. Look inside!

[Belrick 0]

Don't let your ADHD and the length of the post get the better of you. Read on!

Let me put my head on the line and offer some suggestions to tweak the game for the better for everyone.

This is not a post that asks for:

NPCs

Safezones

Arbitrary punishments

Arbitrary identification (ex: bandit skin)

in-game rewards (for killing/not killing)

Or any other really stupid ideas that flood the suggestion forum every day. No, I hope this is a suggestion post that we'll make you, yes you, feel glad that there is at least one other person on this board who isn't full of garbage.

Keep reading, it'll be worth it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps I didn't get this across due to my poor writing or presentation, but let me say it up here for any new readers:

I want to stress these suggestions are not about solving a "Bandit problem" (There isn't a bandit problem, and bandits are awesome). These suggested tweaks are about solving the issue of why regular players will choose shooting on sight over a live and let live or team up attitude.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I fully supported the removal of bandit skins 110%. But, I will admit it introduces a problem: without identification of "bad guys" there is absolutely no incentive to work with strangers, or form organic partnerships on the fly? You are simply better off shooting people on sight.

Now, if there was one (and it is a very small) good side to the bandit skin system, it was that people did form these partnerships: you'd shoot bandits and survive with survivors. Of course, this was flawed because not all bandits were truly bandits.

So how do we recreate the survival aspect, and move away from the sort of "deathmatch" or shoot on sight attitude? Let me start by saying, I think we ought to move away from these attitudes of playing, because they are simply unauthentic, unrealistic, or whatever adverb you want to throw. The problem is that the incentives are stacked Against forming these partnerships, where they shouldn't be.

But, how do we create incentives that aren't arbitrary, like the humanity system? How do we make sure that bandits aren't punished for their style of play? Here is my suggestion list:

1. Severely limit the spawning items

Perhaps we don't need to go as far as removing the starter pistol, but one major issue is that you start with enough stuff as to not need to scavenge to survive. You start with enough food, water, ammo, and medical supplies to auto-run all the way to the biggest hotspot, with your only concern being whether you get shot.

If you get shot and die, its not a big deal, as you'll respawn with all that same stuff again. Why should someone start with morphine? Painkillers? All those makarov mags? Removing or severely limiting these would force people into a survival mindset. It would move starting players towards survival and away from insta-spawn suicide runs on the nearest city to hope you shoot some well equipped player in the back.

The other side to this is that, if well-equipped players come across an obvious newly spawned player, there is less incentive to shoot them for gear. Currently, the best way to get morphine and painkillers is to kill a noob. This is a problematic incentive. You should not kill someone knowing he or she will drop loot like some sort of MMORPG mob. This leads to my second point.

2. Zombie modifications

To compliment the above change, I would suggest modifying how zombies function. In short, zombies should be a little slower, do a little more damage, increase their numbers, and give them better hearing for gunfire.

This, combined with an upcoming change that would allow you to line of sight hide from zombies, means that gunless or ammoless players would have an easier time evading the infected. What this also would mean is that firing a gun would be deadly not just to the victim, but the shooter. The radius for attracting zombies with gunfire should be much larger. They should not instantly run full speed to the site of the gunshot, but perhaps slowly shamble their way there.

This adds another incentive against deathmatching. If you mak or winchester someone in say, Cherno, you should be prone to attracting the whole damn city of zombies to slowly shamble towards you, and break out into a slightly slower run than now when they see you. This would also have the double effect of forcing players to stay mobile if they plan on shooting all the time. For a zombie apocalypse, the amount of gunfire spent is absurd. This combined with making ammo slightly more scarce, would mean pulling the trigger on anyone is a tough, and not easy decision.

Zombies should also congregate more towards deceased players corpses. They ought to shuffle towards them (if they are in "smell" or "sight" range), and stay and eat them. This also means that getting a kill, and looting a kill become two very separate challenges.

Finally, adding to all this, is my most controversial suggestion:

3. Let zombies run (or at least move faster) indoors.

DON'T KILL ME! Hear me out. Remember I suggested that zombies should be slower in the first place, so in my mind, it won't be super sprinting indoors. They should just go more quickly. Why? Well even if you take into account everything I have said above, surviving is still far to easy. If you 3-4 akm mags, and are inside a building, its almost laughably easy to kill off hordes of zombies with well placed shots as they walk into a building. It should not be that easy to clear a town or defend a building. Right now, running inside a building is (if you aren't a crappy player) an invincibility cheat against the infected. All it becomes is a question of whether you have the ammo, which is not the right attitude.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So let me show you how I think (mistakenly probably!) how these changes would play out in three different situations.

1. New spawned player encounters a new spawned player

By looking at their pistols (or lack thereof) both sides can see they are new. Because they do not spawn with hordes of supplies, there is no real incentive to kill each other for say, medicine or water. They could engage in a gun fight, but both risk expending their scarce amounts of ammo for little reward. Furthermore, without morphine or pain killers, either getting shot is a death sentence. Added to to this better hearing zombies, and no more invincibility cheat running into buildings, its probably best they either work together or go their separate ways.

Things we would want passing through their heads:

"What do I get from killing them? Probably little to no loot."

"If I start shooting, will I have enough ammo to finish the fight?"

"If I win the fight, will I have enough ammo to fight the zombies? Even if I run into a building, it'll still be tough..."

"If I get hurt, do I have a bandage? To I have morphine or painkillers enough to see me through?"

2. Well equipped, or long life'd player meets new guy.

This is one of the roughest situations. In terms of an encounter, the well-equipped player has incredible incentives to simply shoot the new guy on site. It might offer a little bit more gear, and would certainly defend against the potential madness of a makaroni suicide knight. There is also the incentive for the new guy to shoot the old one and take his stuff. Just pull the trigger and you acquire hours of work. Still, I think some of my suggestions would at least make these encounters more interesting.

For the new guy:

"Am I making a powerful enemy?"

"Can I actually win the fight?"

"If I kill him, will I be able to loot his body before the zombies arrive?"

"If I can't loot his body before the infected arrive, do I have enough ammo to clear away the infected from his corpse?"

For the old guy:

"Is it worth risking a zombie horde coming after me over little to no loot?"

"What if I lose the fight? Is it worth losing everything over nothing?"

3. Two veterans meeting.

Both of the ammo and supplies to last a while. I think the same incentives apply in this scenario as in others, but unlike situation 2, the potential victim can really fight back. It'll be an even tougher fight with harder risks.

"Are we better off just going our separate ways?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would hope these suggestions are helpful. I think they are good because they do not specifically punish any style of play. They simply tip environmental incentives against THOUGHTLESS acts. Shooting someone should not be casual and without consequences in the apocalypse. However, these suggestions make the incentives natural and environmental, not arbitrary. They do not punish "bandits" any more than they punish survivors. They simply make the act of pulling the trigger one worth thought and consideration, not something to be done casually.

The other benefit is (I hope) a lot of these changes don't require incredibly stupid and gamebreaking things like NPCs or new models, or melee weapons, or other garbage. It would just be tweaking some numbers (I hope).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"BUT Zombies going fast in buildings! How will we survive!"

Don't aggro zombies. Sneak around. And if you do aggro them, don't camp a building. Clear a wave and keep moving. The fact that you can run through stary sobor and train a hundred so zombies into the barn by the military tents, and gun them all down easily without breaking a sweat is rubbish. Again, with added LoS zombie aggro changes, avoiding them should be easier than ever.

Besides, are you so carebear as to tell me we need to handicap zombies to walk for no reason whatsoever. You are probably against bandit skins, but for zombies walking in buildings for no reason at all? Come on.... Zombies walking in buildings is a bug, or so dayz wiki says. Why should we let a bug define the status quo?

"B-but, campers on the shore!"

The issue here is incentives. If people start with next to nothing, the only incentives people have to spawn camp the shore is the thrill of the kill. This is a wholly legitimate play style. There are enough spawn points that it isn't that much of a problem. Besides, just switch servers. With my suggested changes, it would be even harder to just stay in one spot and shoot: the infected will pay you a visit if you are a spawn camper.

"This is unfair to bandits!"

How? By making them think before they shoot? The only people this system would "punish" are those who pull the trigger. That's everyone. If you're the kind of bandit (shit) who runs and guns, and are now complaining that under this suggestion you wouldn't be able to invulnerability cheat run into a building, then tough. These changes would encourage smart, one shot one kill, stay mobile banditry. That is a good thing.

"But even with these changes, large groups of players can still shoot at will, kill all the zombies, and bully me!"

Then get some friends. Lonewolfing should be hard. In fact, its wholly Unnatural for humans to be alone. Rolling with a group of buddies is the norm, and it is totally and completely fair that they will curb stomp you 9/10. If you're the kind of person who comes here to complain about how clans are "ruining" the game then go home. Don't be so bitter that people are working together.

"But with super hearing zombies that do more damage and run in buildings, plus with less ammo, and less starting gear, this game will be practically unplayable and impossible! No one will survive."

Survival in DayZ shouldn't be a given. If the game is hard, and as Rocket says "gone to shit" then we are right on track.

Put fear back into the hearts of players. Make the infected scary and dangerous. Make players ponder every choice. Make every pull of the trigger a deliberate action. This is how one improves the game.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

addendum

Let me provide a personal example.

I am a white knight of sorts. I don't like killing others, and I try to be friendly. Because of this, I die a lot. This is my choice, and is no one's fault but my own.

That being said, there are situations where I wonder, if some of these suggested improvements were made, we could see more authentic gameplay.

I was in Berez. I knew someone else was too. I knew they were in the building I was looking at. I called friendly, and I walked in with my pistol aiming away from them. I had just spawned, so I was just a makaroni warrior.

They fired their lee enfield:

Miss.

While they readying their next shoot. I wave my gun up and down. I am not aiming at them, I am completely non threatening.

Hit.

I am still alive, and I am still standing. I am trying to blurt out desperately that I mean no harm. I still haven't shot back. At this point, it is quite clear I could have poured a whole mag into this poor shooters head, seeing how bad their aim was.

Hit.

And I die.

I am totally okay with how this played out. I approached someone I didn't have to, I encroached on their looting zone. I could have been a murderer. Maybe I was lagging, and that's why I didn't shoot.

I would just hope, with some tweaking, that shooting a lee-enfield three times in a city would be (even more) suicidal. Assuming that person does not kill for fun (which is legitimate), they felt that shooting a new player who wasn't fighting back was their best option. They were right as far as incentives stand now, but I would hope it could be altered so that they would need to rethink that decision.

I would suggest, that someone who does that, not be punished by some arbitrary hand of rocket, but by the encroaching hordes that would soon pour into the building, being able to run inside. They wouldn't have time to loot the body. They'd would have to move fast. They would need to relocate, knowing they didn't have enough time or ammo to stay put.

The only thing that should "punish" the decision of the player, is the world itself.

Thank you for reading this. I appreciate feedback.

---

I see lots of views, but no responses.

I wouldn't mind feedback. Don't be scared by the length.

[Techercizer 82]

Just so we're clear, if somebody is firing a Lee Enfield, they're already aggroing every zombie in a 500-700m radius. I really don't think that gun specifically needs to be made any louder.

[fosty99 160]

Just got back from work so I could be bothered reading it all, but it seems you have some good ideas.

[Scerun 227]

This is really great, a sure step forward in my eyes.

The only time ammo becomes even in the slightest bit scarce is in huge groups. For an apocolypse, there is definitely too much shooting.

Certainly, there is far, far too much food and water about. I wouldn't like to see more -junk-, as that'd be aggrovating. Instead, there should be significantly more useful items that aren't for blood, thirst or hunger. That way you feel that venturing into town is worthwhile, and not just being spammed with empty soda cans, whiskey bottles and tins.

I'm all for better zombie encounters. Like you say, they should indeed be more threatening. Right now, they are a nuisance, and the only time I get killed by one, it feels ufnair. E.G. Zombie super-speed, hitting through walls (to be fixed in next patch), running through walls (fixed in next patch). Furthermore, I would love to see Zombies shamble towards sound - curious - as opposed to knowing exactly where you are, death-sprinting towards your every exact location like they're on a direct-line-call to the eye of sauron.

This is excellently thought out and I can say confidently that you understand DayZ very well, and how it should be.

[Onegamemore 0]

Tougher and more dangerous zombies will be a nice addition to the mod

[Belrick 0]

In resposne to Techercizer:

Oh I understand its their mod. So its all suggestions. That's why this is on the suggestion forum. I am quite happy with the way it is, I am just giving me two cents.

Firing a lee enfield isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Just be on the second floor of a building, stand at the top of the staircase, and use your pistol to dispatch the incoming horde. Headshots are guarantied as the zombies walk indoors. I find if you're inside, firing a loud gun is not dangerous at all. Its just a question of ammo, and even if you don't have enough, being able to run and congo line zombies into the next house (where you can grab more ammo and run, while they politely walk behind you) removes a lot of the danger.

I've spent some time CZ and Lee-enfield sniping from tall places in Cherno as well. The attracted zombies have never been an issue, and probably aren't an issue for good players.

~~

On water and food: It might not necessarily need to be more rare as a spawn or a drop, its just that killing a player is a 100% flawless way of supporting yourself with basic needs and medical supplies.

Think about it. Off the coast, if you need painkillers and morphine, what do you do? Killing people for loot is a legitimate style of gameplay, but it shouldn't be a certainty that you get these things. The way to do that and compliment the other suggestions I have made (and it seems rocket in some of his posts and 20 word questions, is leaning towards this) is to limit the items one spawns with.

[osiriszoran 33]

basically all the game needs is MORE zombies to spawn and swarm to gun shots and to fix their AI pathing.

[WalkerDown (DayZ) 296]

Without punishment for immature behavior (and this is the hrdest part to define) no solution will works.

You think that you have to incentivate ppl to join up to survive... but that is not enough, unfortunately for some ppl the fun part is to spoil the other players fun, the number of trolls on internet (and on multiplay gaming) is incredibly high.

The only serious games where you don't find much dickheads are those paying ones, where you going to loose some money if you play like an idiot.

In other words if i'm a troll, i don't care to die, i don't care to be killed by 1000 zombies around me, i will continue to shot at you .. and i fail, i respawn and i do it again, over and over again.. you can kill me 100 times, but more times i try more chances i have to beat you. And while you have to handle with me and my immature behaviour, i've already ruined your experience. And sadly for certain players this is FUN.

Call it immature.. it may be because they are really 8yo so they are enjoying a different type of fun or whatever... but it's no easy to "teach" ppl to be adult.

The only solution then is to punish (disincentivate rathern than incentivate) a certain behavior: if you die, you need to wait hours to respawn .. you can be a really motivate troll, but believe me, after a couple of times that you had to wait 8 hours for another attempt you'll be bored, and the options will be only two: 1) you'll start to play with some brain; 2) you find another game where to troll.

[Belrick 0]

Without punishment for immature behavior (and this is the hrdest part to define) no solution will works.

You think that you have to incentivate ppl to join up to survive... but that is not enough' date=' unfortunately for some ppl the fun part is to spoil the other players fun, the number of trolls on internet (and on multiplay gaming) is incredibly high.

The only serious games where you don't find much dickheads are those paying ones, where you going to loose some money if you play like an idiot.

In other words if i'm a troll, i don't care to die, i don't care to be killed by 1000 zombies around me, i will continue to shot at you .. and i fail, i respawn and i do it again, over and over again.. you can kill me 100 times, but more times i try more chances i have to beat you. And while you have to handle with me and my immature behaviour, i've already ruined your experience. And sadly for certain players this is FUN.

Call it immature.. it may be because they are really 8yo so they are enjoying a different type of fun or whatever... but it's no easy to "teach" ppl to be adult.

The only solution then is to punish (disincentivate rathern than incentivate) a certain behavior: if you die, you need to wait hours to respawn .. you can be a really motivate troll, but believe me, after a couple of times that you had to wait 8 hours for another attempt you'll be bored, and the options will be only two: 1) you'll start to play with some brain; 2) you find another game where to troll.

[/quote']

Okay I don't know if waiting "hours" to respawn works. Hours seems rough, maybe measure respawn in minutes?

However in my post:

Troll killing is harder, because you don't spawn with the means to do it.

Even if someone totally ignores all the changed incentives, troll killing is still harder because with improved zeds, finding someone to kill, even if you don't plan on surviving yourself, is hard. No more auto-running to Cherno.

Besides, what is wrong with killing people for fun?

[Scerun 227]

Right, PKing isn't immature. It's a very legitimate avenue of play... Sort out your attitude

[Belrick 0]

If the point of the game is survival, then killing another player could be a very legitmate means of surviving. It might be a preemptive attack. They might also have gear you need.

If you don't like player vs player action, you are probably playing the wrong mod.

In fact, let me go further.

~~~~~~~

Are you actually totally against player vs player action? Do you see no reason why it should exist? Do you not think its a meaningful dynamic of this mod?

If you think it is, how would you suggest we fix it to only punish "griefers" "pkers" or "trolls", without breaking the game? People who just kill to grief may be immature, but there is not much of a way to deal with it unless one is okay with resorting to arbitrary things like bandit skins, or punishments.

[Blaise 1]

I agree with the problem you're describing, but I don't agree with the solution. Summarized, your solution is making zombies a bigger problem for bandits and to remove the incentive to spawn-kill new players by changing your start inventory.

I agree that you should start with next-to-nothing, but the reason for me is not that bandits won't spawnkill you (because they will anyway). I think it adds more realism AND it will take you longer to get your base inventory, thus preventing you from getting bored and start hoarding or shooting other players.

But changing zombie behavior is not a solution to the problems you're describing. Zombies are just there for decoration and to add some challenge to getting things done. Changing the behavior of zombies is just patching human behavior and doesn't touch the root problem.

This game is about player-to-player contact, both positive and negative. If we want people to work together instead of shooting each other, we should add incentives for that. I don't know any quick solutions, but I think we can learn from the real world and from zombie fiction like The Walking Dead for inspiration.

What motivates people to group together, not to kill strangers on sight? I wrote a post about that here, in case you're interested: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=12106&pid=112788#pid112788

[WalkerDown (DayZ) 296]

If you think it is' date=' how would you suggest we fix it to only punish "griefers" "pkers" or "trolls", without breaking the game? People who just kill to grief may be immature, but there is not much of a way to deal with it unless one is okay with resorting to arbitrary things like bandit skins, or punishments.

[/quote']

What's the difference between a griefer/troll and someone else that kills another player for a reason? One that comes to my mind is that a "serious" player doesn't kill another one if he doesn't know (or believe) to have an advantage, so he does it having some good chances to survive. While a troll doesn't think much to the consequence, if he has a clan of 10 ppl in front of him, having half brain, you would think: i may kill 3 of them.. but there isn't much chances i can kill em all... but not the troll, he doesn't use the brain, and he starts to shot.. and then he dies, he doesn't "learn".. he'll do it again and again.. until he'll get bored.

This is why i suggested that a respawn timeout may disincentivate this type of behavior.. it may be proportional to your number of deaths: if you die only 1 time in a day, you only have a 5 minutes timeout.. but if you're a brainless rambo, and you going to die 10 times per day, well.. then you must wait 24 hours or more.

[Time Glitch 453]

Yeah...I like this =)

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

Right' date=' PKing isn't immature. It's a very legitimate avenue of play... Sort out your attitude

[/quote']

Not if you don't care that you'll die because now you've attracted all the zombies. Some people just die over and over again just to PK. That's not survival.

[Belrick 0]

If you think it is' date=' how would you suggest we fix it to only punish "griefers" "pkers" or "trolls", without breaking the game? People who just kill to grief may be immature, but there is not much of a way to deal with it unless one is okay with resorting to arbitrary things like bandit skins, or punishments.

[/quote']

What's the difference between a griefer/troll and someone else that kills another player for a reason? One that comes to my mind is that a "serious" player doesn't kill another one if he doesn't know (or believe) to have an advantage, so he does it having some good chances to survive. While a troll doesn't think much to the consequence, if he has a clan of 10 ppl in front of him, having half brain, you would think: i may kill 3 of them.. but there isn't much chances i can kill em all... but not the troll, he doesn't use the brain, and he starts to shot.. and then he dies, he doesn't "learn".. he'll do it again and again.. until he'll get bored.

This is why i suggested that a respawn timeout may disincentivate this type of behavior.. it may be proportional to your number of deaths: if you die only 1 time in a day, you only have a 5 minutes timeout.. but if you're a brainless rambo, and you going to die 10 times per day, well.. then you must wait 24 hours or more.

With the average lifespan only being around 30 minutes, we'd have to be careful not to make any sort of respawn timer too harsh, though again, I am not against the idea.

I respawn timer, however, doesn't solve the problem of why players kill each other on sight, even if they are serious and not griefers. This is the main focus of my suggestion: how to give incentive conflict avoidance / teamwork, without punishing bandit style play.

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

If you think it is' date=' how would you suggest we fix it to only punish "griefers" "pkers" or "trolls", without breaking the game? People who just kill to grief may be immature, but there is not much of a way to deal with it unless one is okay with resorting to arbitrary things like bandit skins, or punishments.

[/quote']

What's the difference between a griefer/troll and someone else that kills another player for a reason? One that comes to my mind is that a "serious" player doesn't kill another one if he doesn't know (or believe) to have an advantage, so he does it having some good chances to survive. While a troll doesn't think much to the consequence, if he has a clan of 10 ppl in front of him, having half brain, you would think: i may kill 3 of them.. but there isn't much chances i can kill em all... but not the troll, he doesn't use the brain, and he starts to shot.. and then he dies, he doesn't "learn".. he'll do it again and again.. until he'll get bored.

This is why i suggested that a respawn timeout may disincentivate this type of behavior.. it may be proportional to your number of deaths: if you die only 1 time in a day, you only have a 5 minutes timeout.. but if you're a brainless rambo, and you going to die 10 times per day, well.. then you must wait 24 hours or more.

Of course the same penalty will also work against a brainless friendly who responds to everyone thinking they are friendly when they really want to shoot him in the face. Either way, it forces people to finally get the point about survival.

Maybe make this penalty only go into effect after a week's worth of gaming so newbs can learn the ropes. But experienced people shouldn't die so much.

[Belrick 0]

One assumption here is that the griefer suicide pkers are the huge problem. I don't think that is the case. I think the problem is that groups of players working together will not naturally emerge like they did pre-bandit skin removal. If you are not shooting on sight, you will die. This is a problem, because even in the worst of the worst survival situations, conflict avoidance, not shoot on sight, is the key.

My suggested solutions try to address this without arbitrary mechanics like skins, timers, or otherwise. They change the environment to make reckless or needless gun battles slightly more dangerous, to both survivor and bandit alike.

Personally, I feel the griefer / camper / mindless troll pker is a heavily exaggerated "problem".

Besides. Should my (terrible) solutions ever see the light of day and work, these so called "bad pkers" are less of a problem: people would be more likely to be in groups and would be able to deal with these pkers.

[worldwar2freak 0]

I agree with this.

[joikd 25]

What's the difference between a griefer/troll and someone else that kills another player for a reason?

Nothing. They both generate tons of forum posts crying about them. :P

By the way, I am for these ideas for the most part.

[WalkerDown (DayZ) 296]

If you "cry" because you die.. you're a kid like the one who killed ya.

In example me.. i'm not afraid of being killed (especially because i know that i will have the same loot soon enough...), i'm "sad" because of the ruined experience/immersion.

I enjoyed the "RPG" part of this mod (until it exists), as FPS/shooter i'm used to play other games (mainly Battlefield), i don't need a slow paced shooter with a so&so graphic and a poor netcode like Arma2.

[hoik 415]

For me these are are the most important questions posed by this thread - and regardless of the solutions (I do like the ones proposed) it is the right questions that matter.

So how do we recreate the survival aspect' date=' and move away from the sort of "deathmatch" or shoot on sight attitude? Let me start by saying, I think we ought to move away from these attitudes of playing, because they are simply unauthentic, unrealistic, or whatever adverb you want to throw.

[/quote']

I agree, attitude is the problem - and an impossible one to solve. Many people have the attitude "well if the game lets me do it, then I will" - and thats as far as their thought proccess goes - gamers have been conditioned to associate "Beating" another player with "Winning" and unless co-operation (on the most basic level I mean, robbing someone instead of killing them IS co-operation in my book) is a hard coded mechanic they don't see the value in it.

Unless you can discourage this player type from joining in all together (like the time-out suggestion) the only way to re-educate them is by imposing rules (IMHO).

But' date=' how do we create incentives that aren't arbitrary, like the humanity system? How do we make sure that bandits aren't punished for their style of play?

[/quote']

One of the most important questions, with so many solutions - The more Threads addressing this issue the better (IMHO) as we might come to some concencus on the matter (also just because you want to try to resolve percieved imbalances, doesn't mean your having a "cry").

I would hope these suggestions are helpful. I think they are good because they do not specifically punish any style of play. They simply tip environmental incentives against THOUGHTLESS acts. Shooting someone should not be casual and without consequences in the apocalypse.

Yes' date=' I think all your suggestion do lead to better gameplay - making people care about how their actions effect others is hard enough to implement in real life. Shooting someone shouldn't be causal and without concequences in any scenario - but in the gaming world it is ingrained.

Lonewolfing should be hard. In fact, its wholly Unnatural for humans to be alone.

Not a question, but a statement I agree with - lone wolfs should expect and infact be asking for harder restrictions in their play-style - Lone survial would be increadibly hard, and only the toughest of the tough could actually do it. Make it hard as hell, a successful lone wolf should be both feared and respected - but you have to earn it.

My question:

"Would players having a global value (so that by killing one person it will effect everyone, not just you and him/her) be a way to reduce thoughtless PvP?"

The reason I ask: It seems obvious that in real life we value eachother as a whole (whatever the reasons for it), even in a apocalypse our primal survial instinct would give stangers some value even if all morality went out the window.

________

EDIT:

Have made a post in general discusions posing this same question: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=12515

[Da_Reapa1 4]

i support this 100%

[Malaclypse 3]

Excellent post, full of simple, common sense ideas which are well articulated. I completely agree with the suggestions you've laid forward, thank you for your effort in compiling them so well. I especially like the *gasp* controversial idea of having zombies run indoors as well as out!

[Gaidoon 19]

I support this thread.