Consequences for killing players/playerbodies attract zeds

[EnermaX 59]

Currently, 90% in PvP situation end in a gunfight, because everyone likes new stuff/food/whatever

But, if a "fresh" dead player body would attract (and spawn) ~ 10 zeds in 100-500m distance and forcing them to run for their fresh meal, you would think twice before killing other players.

What do you think?

EDIT:

I want to see a reaction from the environment against the killer (like aggroing zeds in cities) and it should also happen in non-urban areas.

So far we got some ideas:

-Zed rush(also in forests etc)

-Adrenaline rush/hyperactive bodyfunctions

-Blood smell on low humanity players/increased aggro on zeds http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=13399

EDIT2:

k4killer:

"Basically, when a person is killed, zombies are attracted by the terrible smell. probably like a 100-200m distance would wander towards the dead player and begin to feast on him. This way, if you needed to get the loot from this survivor you would first have to kill off the 20 zeds all gathered around him. Also having all these zombies starting to gather around the dead player would put the killer in great danger of getting seen, and having a whole horde after him."

This pretty much sums it up. Ty.

[fackstah 31]

why dont we punish you for dieing instead ?

[EnermaX 59]

why dont we punish you for dieing instead ?

That doesnt solve the current situation, does it? The "killer" should be "punished" for random killing.

[fackstah 31]

why in a world with no justice system who does the punishing ?

not the DEAD FUCKING PLAYER that who doesnt do it i tell ya what

i say you should be banned for dieing at the hands of a bandit for 24hr's when you die

[Roshi (DayZ) 397]

why dont we punish you for dieing instead ?

That doesnt solve the current situation' date=' does it? The "killer" should be "punished" for random killing.

[/quote']

Ffs - you're rehashing old, old arguments - there is a thread for this - this one will hopefully be wiped soon.

[EnermaX 59]

why in a world with no justice system who does the punishing ?

The environment.

And what effect should have the 24h ban for the KILLED player have?

---

why dont we punish you for dieing instead ?

That doesnt solve the current situation' date=' does it? The "killer" should be "punished" for random killing.

[/quote']

Ffs - you're rehashing old, old arguments - there is a thread for this - this one will hopefully be wiped soon.

Oh yea, old.

1. This is still an alpha

2. This is one of the latest problems yet and it is still not solved

3. Tell me your arguments instead of trolling

[liquidcactus 719]

I do like the idea of zombies spawning and running to a dead player but i think for the most part alot of people are having a hard time understanding what kind of game this is.. in response to the whole pvp thing..

But if pvp didnt exist this would be half the game it is now.

However, dont get me wrong, Im all for countering/toning down the certain "cod" mentality of alot that play. pvp is also almost at a point where you cant trust anyone at all in alot of situations ive come across so far..

I'm defenetly facinated by the idea of some kind of implementation so that a potential "murder" situation(s) could possibly spawn/create some kind of simple random altercation to deter the murder.. or even reverse the situation into the victims hands >:D

Wishful thinking, yes, but a good idea none the less me thinx ^__^

[fackstah 31]

why in a world with no justice system who does the punishing ?

The environment.

And what effect should have the 24h ban for the KILLED player have?

---

why dont we punish you for dieing instead ?

That doesnt solve the current situation' date=' does it? The "killer" should be "punished" for random killing.

[/quote']

You realize i was making fun of your thread? by saying to give you a 24 hour ban

Your idea is the exact same as a million other posts hence why no one is taking it seriously

[jasoonti@hotmail.com 0]

the argument against this is its supposed to be a sort of simulation for what would happen if a zombie infection occurred, if a person decides to kill another person, the only plausible consequences in such a world are the sounds of the gunshot attracting zombies, and the other people finding out you are a murderer and taking you down, both of which are already part of the game, adding something to curb player killing changes a core part of the game, a part of the game that is so important that it would fundamentally change how near everyone player, and the atmosphere about the game, making it almost into a different game entirely, where in people are coerced in to being nice to one another, that is not the point in this game, if you don't like that, this game is not for you.

[samjwbrowne@gmail.com 15]

Your idea is the exact same as a million other posts hence why no one is taking it seriously

It's a new idea as a solution for it (as far as I've read).

And, in my opinion, it will require some kind of solution at some point. Otherwise the playerbase will start to dwindle significantly due to sheer frustration. I know after I get killed for no reason while sneaking along with a bunch of good shit, I don't feel like playing for a while.

I do believe in the whole ultra-realism thing, but I'm not sure I believe that mass murderers would go 'unpunished' (mentally or otherwise) in a real life situation like this. Either that or I have an overly naive comprehension of humanity, in which case it's a miracle that we've managed to create civilisations and inhabit a relatively stable world. Basically, if you're gonna go with realism, there have to be factors that take into account the people who say 'hey, it's just a game, anything goes' and ditch all their moral codes. That's the part that isn't realistic.

[EnermaX 59]

Ok, yea right.

So the only option is, let's say, if you kill a player, then it happen. Just a small chance. Maybe 5%. That triggers a spawned zombie rush towards the body.

[goblinshark 5]

Why is a "punishment" system even in question for "bandits?" Firstly, I don't think labeling players who kill other players for gear "bandits" is even appropriate. This is a post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested slug-fest. It's all hands in, it's a fight for your life, the best of the best, survivalist, man vs wild, all summed up.

The mod, described above, in addition to all of that, is a war simulator. The game is about simulating a given set of circumstances as realistically as possible without sacrificing basic game mechanics and play value. And as such, it does not seem reasonable that players who are surviving, at ANY cost, even the cost of other player's lives, should be punished in any form.

Game-enhancing effects: this is a possibility. Instead of punishing the player for a player-kill, alternatively, the player's experience is changed. An adrenaline mode could be engaged, in which the player's adrenaline and senses are heightened dramatically, increasing the rate at which they dehydrate, and become malnourished. If there's bloodloss involved in a player-kill, the player may lose blood at a quicker rate, and possibly suffer diminishing abilities with firing weaponry.

You don't want to PUNISH players for killing other players in an online survival game where the goal is to live as long as possible under any and all circumstances. I shouldn't feel scared to attack someone with gear that can benefit me because I'll lose playability. However, I should have mental queues alterting me to think twice before killing someone. "Shit, those NVG's look great, but I don't want to risk attracting zombies whilst under a state of decreased firing capabilities and rapid blood loss."

Another alternative, is to implement something that affects the player-killer once he or she has died. For example, for each player killed, 1*.5 you gain a spawn timer when you die. You aren't being "punished" for the actual kills, but as a player-killer, you gain more benefits more quickly, but at the risk of suffering deeper consequences when you finally die. It's risk balancing. Is the kill worth the risk of dying? This, as opposed to simply being punished no matter what as soon as you kill someone.

I welcome criticism and constructive intellectual thought on improving the game that we have come to love and enjoy.

[EnermaX 59]

I don't think that a spawn-timer will solve it, because it does not effect the ingame experience. It will just don't fit.

However, I think, the adrenaline rush is a good idea. Although someone who killed many many players should get less and less effected by this rush, because the character is getting used to it.

Maybe I misspelled my previous post. I don't want to PUNISH killers, I want that there is something to think about before taking the shot. Like you stated:

"Shit, those NVG's look great, but I don't want to risk attracting zombies..."

Yea, it's kinda already ingame, only in urban areas tho.

If the chance of a zombie rush followed by panic etc. would exist (everywhere! forests..), the shooting on sight will stop, and hopefully more random players would cooperate. Right now it's a single"multi"player-game.

[KuntyBallistix (DayZ) 0]

I have not researched this in the forums so excuse me if this idea has already been discussed, also, I have no real insight into the way the arma engine works and with that in mind ppls, let me suggest the following:

still keep PVP as is but have those wishing to be bandits join opfor/bluefor side and those wishing to be survivors join the civilian side. FF is active on the military side while FF is off on the civilian side. This way bandits can still kill survivors and each other and have distinctive outfits and survivors can trust other survivors as they cant kill each other but still shoot back at bandits - a fair compromise is it not? - this is in no way a final demand and constructive criticism is welcome on postcards below . . . . .

[goblinshark 5]

Thanks for the input. I agree. Matter of fact, the spawn timer is a terrible idea, and I don't think people should have to wait to play because they successfully killed numerous amounts of people. Maybe an alternative suggestion can build off what you said.

So, the more people you kill, the less "adrenaline" affects you. Your blood loss is not as bad, maybe you aren't as vulnerable to malnourishment and dehydration. HOWEVER, that would seem like a reward, and to keep the system balanced, when you DO finally meet your maker, you actually go back NEGATIVE. You start with slightly less health / food / hydration / supplies than you normally would. If there's going to be enhancements and effects for player-killing, they need to stay consistent with, "should I really do this?" And less with being some opportunity to exploit. These are entry-level preliminary thoughts though, and we have a lot of room to build on them before submitting our ideas to rocket.

[RobbaN (DayZ) 0]

Killing for survival is a huge part of the game, but a part of me still agrees with you. If they're going to mass-kill everyone, then it will be non-real..

[goblinshark 5]

FF is active on the military side while FF is off on the civilian side. This way bandits can still kill survivors and each other and have distinctive outfits and survivors can trust other survivors as they cant kill each other - a fair compromise is it not? - this is in no way a final demand and constructive criticism is welcome on a postcards below . . . . .

Great idea! Make it so that survivors can enable and/or disable friendly fire. Whereas choosing the life of a bandit enables a forced open-fire rule, where you cannot turn friendly fire off. However, I would assume there would be more players that would seek to have friendly fire on, for a safer living environment. To combat the imbalance, a third faction, "contractor" or "rogue" could be offered. These people are not faction-aligned, and thus don't receive the benefits of being in one. However, they have more maneuverability and can possibly form temporary alliances with either side, whichever they see fit. This would take a great independent and socially capable players to keep from dying.

But, we cannot forget that this is a zombie game. And as such we should state the benefits / negatives of joining a particular faction in regards to survival. The shining benefit is that you have access to more resources and teammates for scavenging the cities. A rogue player would need to take up temporary refuge to truly be beneficial to his or her self. I really like this idea and I think it would harbor more player-interaction and teamwork to survive on this massive map.

[Tassadarh 2]

You are annoying.

From the patchnotes:

* [NEW] Heartbeat when cursor on a player with very low humanity (heart beats faster the lower it is)

That's all we need, if not too much...

[EnermaX 59]

I think we overstated the case.

Factions like good or bad are limiting the freedom of the player. This should not happen in dayz.

To get back to my point, I want to see a reaction from the environment against the killer (like aggroing zeds in cities) and it should also happen in non-urban areas.

So far we got some ideas:

-Zed rush(also in forests etc)

-Adrenaline rush/hyperactive bodyfunctions

-Blood smell on low humanity players/increased aggro on zeds http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=13399

*edited first post*

[KuntyBallistix (DayZ) 0]

IMO I think that is a lame attempt to rectify the situation as it presents "loopholes" such as having to aim at each other (most bandits wouldn't even wait to hear heartbeat before pulling the trigger) and it doesn't begin to address the problem of survivors killing survivors which in turn is going to eliminate any trust in ppl in the game . . . . .

Just for the record I play both sides and in true OCD fashion I will play survivor till i die then bandit till I die and so on and so forth. I see being a bandit as the easy mode and survivor as the hard mode and would like to have a bit more of a challenge when playing as a bandit tbh.

This is my opinion - you all have your own . . . . . .

---

. . . . . Factions like good or bad are limiting the freedom of the player. This should not happen in dayz.

we already have factions in place - survivor/bandit - it's just that they are not "official" so to speak

[EnermaX 59]

Yes, but a faction is too much.

Let's say I'm a bandit. I kill people, but sometimes I don't want to kill someone, so it's my choice. When I'm in a faction I am limited, maybe because I wear a bandit uniform...

Everyone is a Lone Wolf, but we can team up and play it our way.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

From the patchnotes:

* [NEW] Heartbeat when cursor on a player with very low humanity (heart beats faster the lower it is)

That's all we need' date=' if not too much...

[/quote']

Other than expose massive player killers like backstabbers, that change won't do much more. People ask for changes that make feasible coop among strangers and that's pretty legit to me.

[Hawk24 94]

What do you think?

Get the fuck out

[KuntyBallistix (DayZ) 0]

What do you think?

Get the fuck out

Troll much?

[zeeb 6]

Why dont reverse the story and make the virus not airborne, then we can easily do it this way, if a survivor gets killed and have been bitten or that he dies by zombies, then he should die, and after 1 minute arise as an zombie with survivor model, also when you kill this zombie it will contain the same inventory the player had.

I dunno..