Negative behavior consequences suggestion.

[M3D1C 0]

It goes without saying that playing a game like DayZ tends to make you develop trust issues concerning your fellow player. When fortunate or unfortunately you stumble upon another player whom you have no prior association with, you're instantly faced with an issue of either making friends or protecting whats most important; the stuff you've spent the last couple of hours procuring. Other than the clear identifying marker of the bandit appearance to give some insight on the person's past decisions, a regular civilian and even someone with a hero skin can turn out to be a total douche. That's were a game mechanic comes in that makes it much harder for a player killer to make such a quick decision upon taking a fellow survivors life unprovoked. What I suggest is that once a player decides to kill another player such as an "innocent" civilian or hero, that player's hands are now stained with their blood making them that much more attractive to zombies. Zombies will see/hear/smell you from a much further distance than you're regular player, making it much harder for you to go through populated areas to gather supplies and overall making survival more difficult. By all means, killing a bandit should warrant no consequences as that should be considered self defense. The aggro range to increase as you kill more players should be debated. Just as previously mentioned anyone is capable of being a low life and there will be a situation where you'll have to kill someone who isn't a bandit, which brings up the question if this should only be applicable to bandits. Overall I feel this actually brings some punishment to people who kill others for fun and possibly help alleviate some tension and maybe even plant the seed of hope for meeting other decent survivors.

What do the rest of you think of adding a consequence to killing others. Or do you prefer the anarchy?

[Lupatchi 143]

It goes without saying that playing a game like DayZ tends to make you develop trust issues concerning your fellow player. When fortunate or unfortunately you stumble upon another player whom you have no prior association with, you're instantly faced with an issue of either making friends or protecting whats most important; the stuff you've spent the last couple of hours procuring. Other than the clear identifying marker of the bandit appearance to give some insight on the person's past decisions, a regular civilian and even someone with a hero skin can turn out to be a total douche. That's were a game mechanic comes in that makes it much harder for a player killer to make such a quick decision upon taking a fellow survivors life unprovoked. What I suggest is that once a player decides to kill another player such as an "innocent" civilian or hero, that player's hands are now stained with their blood making them that much more attractive to zombies. Zombies will see/hear/smell you from a much further distance than you're regular player, making it much harder for you to go through populated areas to gather supplies and overall making survival more difficult. By all means, killing a bandit should warrant no consequences as that should be considered self defense. The aggro range to increase as you kill more players should be debated. Just as previously mentioned anyone is capable of being a low life and there will be a situation where you'll have to kill someone who isn't a bandit, which brings up the question if this should only be applicable to bandits. Overall I feel this actually brings some punishment to people who kill others for fun and possibly help alleviate some tension and maybe even plant the seed of hope for meeting other decent survivors.

What do the rest of you think of adding a consequence to killing others. Or do you prefer the anarchy?

hey, just because people have different playstyles than you doesnt mean that they deserve a consiquence.

stop bieng butthurt, if you buy the game. play how you like.

its an openworld sandbox rpg, part of that is bieng free of choice.

[M3D1C 0]

hey, just because people have different playstyles than you doesnt mean that they deserve a consiquence.

stop bieng butthurt, if you buy the game. play how you like.

its an openworld sandbox rpg, part of that is bieng free of choice.

Do I sound butthurt? I just don't want the game boiling down to shooting everything in sight like every shooter these days. Cause that's what the common denominator is going to be.

[psylnz 34]

Absolutely Not!

In a world full of games that set narrow rules and parameters, DayZ is a breath of fresh air. I've never played, nor even heard of a game that gives you as much freedom to play the way you want. M3D1C you just need to play more carefully, and judge your risk taking a little better. Put some thought into how you play and it's quite easy to avoid getting killed by other players. And if you want to team up with people, look in the clan's section of the forums.

[Welch (DayZ) 756]

Sandbox games are open-ended. Being able to do what you want. It just sounds like you're pissed because you were killed and the bandit got away laughing.

[jaytmuk (DayZ) 621]

Do I sound butthurt? I just don't want the game boiling down to shooting everything in sight like every shooter these days. Cause that's what the common denominator is going to be.

Been playing this game for bout 6 months and i can play for Dayz on a character without even meeting another player.

And no i dont play on empty servers, Fogeyz server has 45+ players on it most times and is 24/7 daytime.

Today i played for 4 hours running around cherno and up north and managed to avoid players and stay alive.

Yes you will get unlucky sometimes and bump into a bandit, but if your carefull and dont run down the middle of a road like a loony you will stay in the shadows and stay alive.

.

Too many players run around with a zombie train after them and wonder why they get sniped lol

Scope out an area or town before going into it, and always keep low, crawl if have to lol

try to not draw too many zombies attention, and maybe use an axe if have to fight them in a building :P

If you want to be a survivor, Act like one :)

[jaytmuk (DayZ) 621]

It goes without saying that playing a game like DayZ tends to make you develop trust issues concerning your fellow player. When fortunate or unfortunately you stumble upon another player whom you have no prior association with, you're instantly faced with an issue of either making friends or protecting whats most important; the stuff you've spent the last couple of hours procuring. Other than the clear identifying marker of the bandit appearance to give some insight on the person's past decisions, a regular civilian and even someone with a hero skin can turn out to be a total douche. That's were a game mechanic comes in that makes it much harder for a player killer to make such a quick decision upon taking a fellow survivors life unprovoked. What I suggest is that once a player decides to kill another player such as an "innocent" civilian or hero, that player's hands are now stained with their blood making them that much more attractive to zombies. Zombies will see/hear/smell you from a much further distance than you're regular player, making it much harder for you to go through populated areas to gather supplies and overall making survival more difficult. By all means, killing a bandit should warrant no consequences as that should be considered self defense. The aggro range to increase as you kill more players should be debated. Just as previously mentioned anyone is capable of being a low life and there will be a situation where you'll have to kill someone who isn't a bandit, which brings up the question if this should only be applicable to bandits. Overall I feel this actually brings some punishment to people who kill others for fun and possibly help alleviate some tension and maybe even plant the seed of hope for meeting other decent survivors.

What do the rest of you think of adding a consequence to killing others. Or do you prefer the anarchy?

If you really want to play Dayz like a zombie Apocalypse and less Banditry try a nightime server with low population, Use chemlights and flares in forest areas, Use an online map to assist with nagivation.

Its alot of fun on night server if play it right.

[Rage VG 4033]

Those suggestions discourage PvP which is a major part of the game. The Bandit skin was DayZ's way of showing who to trust without significantly affecting gameplay.

[Very Ape 748]

Perhaps more incentive to team up, such as zombies being an actual threat.

I'd like to not only have to avoid zombies in standalone, but actually fight them, in order to get my precious items. Sure, stealth should always be an option, but when I'm detected I want the zombies to be able to kill me even if I run. They're ridiculously easy to escape, the only threat they pose is revealing your presence to other players, which is silly. They're a nuisance now, nothing more. I want zombies to instill a black fear in my soul-- other survivors a faint glimmer of hope.

The other day I nonchalantly escaped a horde of zeds in the middle of Cherno. I didn't interrupt my conversation with my friend while fleeing-- no muttered curses or anguished cries. I even sipped from my glass of orange juice, almost casually, while weaving in and out of a crowd of zeds, drawing up a zombie train which I quickly lost running into a building and up a hill. I wasn't worried, because there were only a few people on the server, and knew I wouldn't draw too much attention.

Which is bullshit.

Again, zombies are just a visual indicator of other survivors, and a slight nuisance in urban combat. I've seen players in firefights almost ignoring a few zeds smacking them, turning around only after a few seconds to casually swat them away with their rifles, so to speak. Firefight in Cherno? Once the zeds come running into the middle of a firefight I'd like to see both teams involved drop their guns and run away in panic.

Edited December 2, 2012 by All Powerful Ape

[jaytmuk (DayZ) 621]

Those suggestions discourage PvP which is a major part of the game. The Bandit skin was DayZ's way of showing who to trust without significantly affecting gameplay.

Must say i dislike the bandit skin mechanic, Its an unDayz like mechanic, I like the new blood and virus from looting players idea Rocket is bringing into the Standalone tho.

How to play not like a survivor - Other day i found a car in Zelengorst (not sure if correct spelling lol) so i messaged my friend and he found me some wheel and was on hes way up to me with them to fix the car.

I sat inside the car in broad daylight in a carpark (stupidly) and was sniped in the head lol

Wot a Noob i was lol

[jaytmuk (DayZ) 621]

Perhaps more incentive to team up, such as zombies being an actual threat.

I'd like to not only have to avoid zombies in standalone, but actually fight them, in order to get my precious items. Sure, stealth should always be an option, but when I'm detected I want the zombies to be able to kill me even if I run. It's ridiculously easy to escape, the only threat they pose is revealing your presence to other players, which is silly. They're a nuisance now, nothing more. I want zombies to instill a black fear in my soul-- other survivors a faint glimmer of hope.

Zombies are a Fruit Fly atm, Id like them to be a Huge Fucking Hornet, with Malaria lol

[Inception. 9443]

Those who kill should not be penalised. Instead, those who do not/those who are good should be rewarded.

[the horror 262]

Those who kill should not be penalised. Instead, those who do not/those who are good should be rewarded.

That's the most intelligent suggestion regarding this issue that Ive heard so far!

[Trizzo 632]

Those who kill should not be penalised. Instead, those who do not/those who are good should be rewarded.

That's the most intelligent suggestion regarding this issue that Ive heard so far!

Disagree entirely.

Why reward one end of the spectrum of behavior but not the oppoiste? It suggests a golden rule or agency that simply does not exist.

Good should be undertaken for its own sake, the reward should always be a non factor when undertaking "good". Good for goodness sake, the benefit you reap happens during and after the undertaking of a good act. Whatever happens between the various parties as a result of "good" actions is the reward. This is a tangible and quantifiable form of Karama. Not a cosmic good or RPG statisticial notion of good.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Trizzo

[Rage VG 4033]

Disagree entirely.

Why is rewarding one end spectrum of behavior "good" but not the oppoiste.

Getting everything the player had worked for up to that point isn't good enough of a reward?

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

If a community of players took the initiative and banded together, they would have automatically and instinctively created a reward system, where,

if you're known to be friendly, you're accepted as such.

The problem stems from pretty much each and every player, being a self-serving asshat.

@Trizzo, Rage is right. The "service with a smile", every resource on tap, killing and stealing lifestyle is its own reward.

The only down-side is, it comes with recognition. Currently in the form of a shemagh over your face.

EDIT:

What I suggest is that once a player decides to kill another player such as an "innocent" civilian or hero, that player's hands are now stained with their blood making them that much more attractive to zombies.

If it's decided that a bullet, potentially from over a Kilometre away, can put blood on your hands. Something went wrong in the brainstorming session. Edited December 3, 2012 by Chabowski

[Trizzo 632]

Getting everything the player had worked for up to that point isn't good enough of a reward?

@Trizzo, Rage is right. The "service with a smile", every resource on tap, killing and stealing lifestyle is its own reward.

The only down-side is, it comes with recognition. Currently in the form of a shemagh over your face.

You both concentrate on one aspect of allegedly negative behaviour but discount how often and inconsequential loot is when it comes to the body count. How many bodies do I found unlooted (even my own), what about highly geared people killing who don’t need loot but kill anyway. One of the worst and indulgent ascpects of PvP is Electro/Cherno snipers. The desire for loot didn't feed founds into those chambers. Loot might be one reason that a person might kill another person, to get it. Even so that doesn't automatically make it a negative behaviour.

Besides this being friendly currently has its own reward. Benefits of cooperation, pleasant feelings, preferable to constant anxiety as a solo player, more firepower, easier specialisation.

And nobody even addressed the philosophical aspect of this proposal. Chiefly why should and why would there exist a golden rule or agency that makes judgements on behaviour in DayZ? Any such system doesn’t fit the mission statement or the ethos of the game.

The only down-side is, it comes with recognition. Currently in the form of a shemagh over your face.

I know! It should be removed and player customisation put in it's place. What robber wanders the streets in broad daylight with a darkened face, balaclava and Televison.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Trizzo

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

If players choose not to loot their victims then that's not going against anything I said. They take their pleasure in other forms.

Did you even read my post, or just disagree with it?

You have a different way to make the very same point.

Pleasant sensations aside, if more players were less cowardly, being nice would have measurable benefits.

[Inception. 9443]

Disagree entirely.

Why reward one end of the spectrum of behavior but not the oppoiste? It suggests a golden rule or agency that simply does not exist.

Good should be undertaken for its own sake, the reward should always be a non factor when undertaking "good". Good for goodness sake, the benefit you reap happens during and after the undertaking of a good act. Whatever happens between the various parties as a result of "good" actions is the reward. This is a tangible and quantifiable form of Karama. Not a cosmic good or RPG statisticial notion of good.

Okay, let me re-phrase it.

Killing a person is easy. Taking their hard earned gear is easy [in most cases]. But meeting random players and forming a group with them to take on the dangers of the world you play in is difficult, is it not?

What I'm saying now is that being good [grouping up, etc] should have more rewards to balance out the rewards for being bad vs the rewards for being good ratio. What I'm NOT saying is to disadvantage the players who choose the path of cruelty and malice by things such as going insane, etc.

To add to the rewards for being good, why not introduce more items into the game that will be of more use to the good players? Not things like "you have leveled up your positive humanity!" or some nonesense like that.

Merely a suggestion. I can't tell if what I said actually makes sense, but anyway.

[Trizzo 632]

If players choose not to loot their victims then that's not going against anything I said. They take their pleasure in other forms.

Did you even read my post, or just disagree with it?

You have a different way to make the very same point.

Pleasant sensations aside, if more players were less cowardly, being nice would have measurable benefits.

I don't disagree with you I disagree with any extra punishment/reward mechanic.

The "reward" people get from killing for loot is seperate from another mechanic that punishes somebody for doing that just that.

Just as not killing and reaping the the benifits of cooperation is the reward.

There should not be any system that gives you extra or less. Your actions give you the benift as well as the consquences. Once the Z and survival elemens are harder much should change in DayZ. Curretnly cooperation just leads to good weapons. Generally when there is a buildup of firepower and bored people any peace is a fragile one.

Okay, let me re-phrase it.

Killing a person is easy. Taking their hard earned gear is easy [in most cases]. But meeting random players and forming a group with them to take on the dangers of the world you play in is difficult, is it not?

What I'm saying now is that being good [grouping up, etc] should have more rewards to balance out the rewards for being bad vs the rewards for being good ratio. What I'm NOT saying is to disadvantage the players who choose the path of cruelty and malice by things such as going insane, etc.

To add to the rewards for being good, why not introduce more items into the game that will be of more use to the good players? Not things like "you have leveled up your positive humanity!" or some nonesense like that.

Merely a suggestion. I can't tell if what I said actually makes sense, but anyway.

Thanks for the clarifcartion because I support this notion to the fullness!

I want some fucking high tier loot that isn't just a tool to kill/help kill people with. I want deeper cooperation through items/mechanics! Not an ethical system.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Trizzo

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

To add to the rewards for being good, why not introduce more items into the game that will be of more use to the good players? Not things like "you have leveled up your positive humanity!" or some nonesense like that.

If I understand you correctly, I picture something like cooking a meal for a group.

Not necessarily a "positive humanity" buff, but a potentially friendly group activity.

EDIT: It also might be more beneficial than a tin of beans, depending on how nutrition/wellbeing is going to be implemented.

@Trizzo, I get what your saying, but I never meant what I said as a suggestion for "extra" anything. I'm merely reinforcing the idea that bandits play on easy mode.

EDIT2: Just noticed you edited a post from earlier.

I couldn't give a shit about the philosophical implications TBH ^_^

If the world in DayZ is destined to be authentic, people should WANT to cooperate and socialize, instead of being KoS pussies all the time.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Chabowski

[captainwaffles 41]

I get off on anarchy

[Rage VG 4033]

You both concentrate on one aspect of alleglly negative behavior but discount how often and inconsqential loot is when it comes to the body count. How many bodies do I found unlooted (even my own), what about highly geared people killing who dont need loot but kill anyway. One of the worst and indulgent ascpects of PvP is Electro/Cherno snipers. The desire for loot didn't feed founds into those chambers. Loot might be one reason that a person might kill another person, to get it. Even so that doesn't automaticlly make it a negative bahavior.

Desides this neing friednly currently has its own reward. Benifits of cooperation, pleasant feelings, preferable to constant anxiety as a solo player, more firepower, easier specialisation.

And nobody even addressed the philosophical aspect of this proposal. Chiefly why should and why would there exist a golden rule or agency that makes judgements on behaviour in DayZ? Any such system doesnt fit the mission statement or the ethos of the game.

I know! It should be removed and player customisation put in it's place. What robber wanders the streets in broad daylight with a darkened face, balaclava and Televison.

Like I said before, I don't believe that killing other players should be punished at all, I'm just saying that the rewards for doing it are more than worth it, hence why there is so much KOSing going on.

[Failbait 60]

No. I want total freedom. The rewards and consequences are the rewards and consequences.

[Jars (DayZ) 63]

hey, just because people have different playstyles than you doesnt mean that they deserve a consiquence.

stop bieng butthurt, if you buy the game. play how you like.

its an openworld sandbox rpg, part of that is bieng free of choice.

Being able to play the game as you choose , is definitely what the game is about .

To suggest that there should be no consequences for your choices , is not what the game is about .

Killing another human would have an enormous impact on you .

Post traumatic stress disorder exists for a reason .