Bigger incentives to be a Bandit/Hero?

[barneystafford@gmail.com 58]

Should there be more meaningful reasons to play in a particular way?

I see lots of posts on here complaining about getting killed on sight etc. Then there is the standard argument about PvP being an integral part of DayZ.

These two conflicting views (among many others) highlights why we all love this game. It is exactly what you want to make of it, you can play it how you want.

The obvious, and arguably easier, tactic in this game is to kill everyone you meet on sight, take all their gear and carry on your merry way. Do you think that a bigger (bigger than just a different skin) incentive/disincentive to be a hero/bandit would change the gameplay? And if so, for the better or for the worse? What degree of incentives would be acceptable, or what degree would make the game imbalanced?

Apologies if this specific question has been asked before. I did do a search (albeit a quick one), and there didn't seem to be a similarly posed question.

[Testwd3r235 2810]

I don't think either side should get a bonus, people will play how they like and do what they find funner. I play as a hero and I don't think I should be any more rewarded than a bandit.

[beatSTV 631]

I don't think either side should get a bonus, people will play how they like and do what they find funner. I play as a hero and I don't think I should be any more rewarded than a bandit.

agreed

[thesodesa 99]

Yeah, it has been discussed before.

More on point though, I don't think you should be always able to play exactly how you want, if you want your character to survive. Especially in the future, when the disease and medical features are implemented you might have to rely on other people, even strangers to survive an infection or a fractured leg.

Edited March 1, 2013 by TheSodesa

[Target Practice (DayZ) 1335]

Personally, I don't think so - what makes DayZ such an interesting game is the 'shades of grey' that make the game what it is - if you start rewarding one particular playstyle over another, even in a small way, suddenly you are playing favourites and trying to push players down a particular path. That's not what DayZ is about - there's no 'good' and 'bad', there's just survival and doing what you believe is necessary to encourage that - if that means opening fire on a non-bandit who's armed and ignoring your calls to stop and identify himself, then that's that - I don't think players should miss out on something simply because they make that judgement call.

[thesodesa 99]

Yeah, it has been discussed before.

More on point though, I don't think you should be always able to play exactly how you want, if you want your character to survive. Especially in the future, when the disease and medical features are implemented you might have to rely on other people, even strangers to survive an infection or a fractured leg.

What I'm tying to say is, I think you are going to find it impossible to stick to just one play style in the standalone.

[Testwd3r235 2810]

What I'm tying to say is, I think you are going to find it impossible to stick to just one play style in the standalone.

This is why I'm gonna love the changeable clothes, having to shoot down 'violent' people with neutral skins sometimes makes me a bandit until I can find someone who I already helped, who then trusts me, to help them again.

[barneystafford@gmail.com 58]

Personally, I don't think so - what makes DayZ such an interesting game is the 'shades of grey' that make the game what it is - if you start rewarding one particular playstyle over another, even in a small way, suddenly you are playing favourites and trying to push players down a particular path. That's not what DayZ is about - there's no 'good' and 'bad', there's just survival and doing what you believe is necessary to encourage that - if that means opening fire on a non-bandit who's armed and ignoring your calls to stop and identify himself, then that's that - I don't think players should miss out on something simply because they make that judgement call.

I agree with your 'shades of grey' analogy. Do you think that the hero/bandit skin is therefore unhelpful? Or do you think it's a suitable indicator and/or dis/incentive?

This is why I'm gonna love the changeable clothes, having to shoot down 'violent' people with neutral skins sometimes makes me a bandit until I can find someone who I already helped, who then trusts me, to help them again.

I like that fact that you can never quite be sure about neutral skinned players. Maybe a bigger reward for taking tha risk?

Edited March 1, 2013 by barney99

[hoik 415]

Personally, I don't think so - what makes DayZ such an interesting game is the 'shades of grey' that make the game what it is - if you start rewarding one particular playstyle over another, even in a small way, suddenly you are playing favourites and trying to push players down a particular path. That's not what DayZ is about - there's no 'good' and 'bad', there's just survival and doing what you believe is necessary to encourage that - if that means opening fire on a non-bandit who's armed and ignoring your calls to stop and identify himself, then that's that - I don't think players should miss out on something simply because they make that judgement call.

I agree, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be logical causality which can influence how a player may play, but does not force them into a role because it is the most advantageous.

For me one good solution would be to make players take into account the big picture - give everyones actions meaning, both for themselves and those around them. If everyones actions had knock on effects on the world around them, and in tern the other players in the server, then maybe you could get players putting more thought into their actions as well as careing more about the actions of those around them.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Hoik

[Target Practice (DayZ) 1335]

I agree with your 'shades of grey' analogy. Do you think that the hero/bandit skin is therefore unhelpful? Or do you think it's a suitable indicator and/or dis/incentive?

No, I don't have too much of a problem with it, to be honest - I've bumped into folks with bandit skins before that are perfectly friendly - I once raided a crash site with a bandit when we got there at more or less the same time. He spotted me watching him from a way off, figured that I could have fired at him but didn't, so he let me take what I wanted from the site as long as he could have first pickings, which I was happy to agree to. As long as you remember that you're playing the player and not the character model, there's a lot of fun to be had.

Having said that, I'm much more likely to open fire on a non-responsive bandit player than I am a non-responsive hero player, as it's a lot harder to keep that hero skin whilst murdering people randomly.

[barneystafford@gmail.com 58]

I agree, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be logical causality which can influence how a player may play, but does not force them into a role because it is the most advantageous.

For me one good solution would be to make players take into account the big picture - give everyones actions meaning, both for themselves and those around them. If everyones actions had knock on effects on the world around them, and in tern the other players in the server, then maybe you could get players putting more thought into their actions as well as careing more about the actions of those around them.

I think the causality aspect of the way a game works is central to its success, and I guess it's a major factor of whether the game feels balanced. Balance is important because it allows players to make choices without fear of being disadvantaged. All games are tweaked and biased in one way or another to achieve balance, and I wonder if the issue of balance in this game is between Bandit/Hero or some other measure?

I read your 'choice based on freedom' topic - very thought provoking, you got my beans :)

There is an idea within game theory called the Hawk-Dove game, the premise is that hawks are inherently selfish and will fight for resources. Doves are inherently altruistic and will share resources. When a dove meets a dove, they share 50/50. When a hawk meets a hawk, they get an equal share but it is less than what a dove/dove scenario results in because the conflict is damaging to both parties. When a Hawk meets a Dove, the Hawk takes all resources and the Dove receives nothing. The main variable in this theory is how much the resources are valued at, and this variable can be tuned in order to produce a society full of doves, society full of hawks, or a society with equal numbers. An unstable society can also be produced where the relative populations swing one way and another. Transferring this theory into a game like DayZ you can work in all kinds of variables to affect the dove/hawk ratio. And I guess this is the real question that I asked in the OP.

No, I don't have too much of a problem with it, to be honest - I've bumped into folks with bandit skins before that are perfectly friendly - I once raided a crash site with a bandit when we got there at more or less the same time. He spotted me watching him from a way off, figured that I could have fired at him but didn't, so he let me take what I wanted from the site as long as he could have first pickings, which I was happy to agree to. As long as you remember that you're playing the player and not the character model, there's a lot of fun to be had.

Having said that, I'm much more likely to open fire on a non-responsive bandit player than I am a non-responsive hero player, as it's a lot harder to keep that hero skin whilst murdering people randomly.

This is just the kind of experience which makes the game so intense! Trust and distrust in equal measures. So do you think bandit/hero skin don't really mean anything? Do you wish they meant more? Or is it fine the way it is?

Edited March 1, 2013 by barney99

[thesodesa 99]

This is just the kind of experience which makes the game so intense! Trust and distrust in equal measures. So do you think bandit/hero skin don't really mean anything? Do you wish they meant more? Or is it fine the way it is?

I'd rather have the skins removed to be honest.

[Testwd3r235 2810]

I'd rather have the skins removed to be honest.

Same here.