Zombie killing Incentive

[jacksgrin 7]

I have done a search to see if this is an original idea, so please don't bash.

Recently, I have tried turning to banditry and a player I killed asked me why I killed him.

He said "I don't understand why you killed me! Teaming up against the zombies is so much more fun!"

Before typing my reply, it caused me to really consider why I had turned to banditdom in the first place.

I told him "Because running away from zombies is easier and there is no incentive to kill them"

Now, before you cut off my testicles and say "This is a realism mod, Jack. GTFO moron!"

Consider the following.

**PLEASE NOTE**

I am NOT campaigning for an Exp system. Read my subsequent replies for more of what I'm getting at.

In every zed movie, somebody comes up with an eventually comes up with an idea dependent on 2 factors -- time and experience.

And as I understand it, the standalone will allow crafting to some degree;

Maybe... Just maybe...

CRAFTING CERTAIN COMPONENTS/COMBINATIONS REQUIRES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ZOMBIE KILLS.

Or something. But right now I have no reason to take a shot at any zombies. I'm just gonna throw that out there.

Edited March 4, 2013 by jacksgrin

[-Gews- 7443]

No, progression systems and experience points do not belong in DayZ!

They need to make the zombies more dangerous, or make them hang around the places you want to be, so you actually need to kill them if you aggro a bunch while looting a store, etc. That will be hard to do as long as zombies can't run indoors.

[dallas 5195]

My current character's zombie kill count is 4500, I feel like I at least deserve a special hat or something.

[Azziax 81]

I vote against. Killing zombies/infected for experience or needing their kills for professions/actions of any kind is not realistic in any way.

I only kill them when in dire need of food/drinks and no stores are nearby or no loot found in houses... hoping they carry something usefull

For the rest. They are just a part of this game....

Edited March 4, 2013 by Azziax

[jacksgrin 7]

I vote against. Killing zombies/infected for experience or needing their kills for professions/actions of any kind is not realistic in any way.

I only kill them when in dire need of food/drinks and no stores are nearby or no loot found in houses... hoping they carry something usefull

For the rest. They are just a part of this game....

I'm not talking about professions or experience points. I'm talking about the innovation that comes from experience. i.e. If you were to kill 500 zombies in real life, you'd probably realized a better way to do it, Like attach a knife to a broom handle.

This makes it so that not any old regular vanilla player can just find a vanilla weapon and mod the hell out of it right off the bat.

[CreepySalad 108]

No.

y r u dong ths 2 me plszzzz stop

[SP45M 240]

If zeds had items that were only obtainable from them then I would kill more zeds. That is if the items are useful, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have killed a town full of zeds just to find a can of beans in an emergency. More often than not though my player kill count is above my zed count.

[jacksgrin 7]

No.

y r u dong ths 2 me plszzzz stop

Way to contribute to the conversation.

If you have a real opposition to this, please state it logically. Otherwise, you're just being closed-minded and resistant to change.

Once again, I will state the reasons why I think this would be a good addition, or at LEAST a consideration:

Forces at least some PvE for everyone, even bandits (if you want better than vanilla weapons).

Rewards players for fighting the overall threat of the apocalypse (the infection).

Adds an element of risk (players will attempt to take out zeds, which may attract the horde and lead to their demise, shots attract bandits, etc.).

What I'm NOT saying:

herr durr add exp to the game lulz.

leik omg makes zombies dorp loot like borderworlds3

merk it an RPGFPSCOPTERLOL

Thanks.

[CreepySalad 108]

Way to contribute to the conversation.

If you have a real opposition to this, please state it logically. Otherwise, you're just being closed-minded and resistant to change.

Once again, I will state the reasons why I think this would be a good addition, or at LEAST a consideration:

Forces at least some PvE for everyone, even bandits (if you want better than vanilla weapons).

Rewards players for fighting the overall threat of the apocalypse (the infection).

Adds an element of risk (players will attempt to take out zeds, which may attract the horde and lead to their demise, shots attract bandits, etc.).

What I'm NOT saying:

herr durr add exp to the game lulz.

leik omg makes zombies dorp loot like borderworlds3

merk it an RPGFPSCOPTERLOL

Thanks.

Okay, yeah sure.

-This game is attempting to be a brutal survival simulator. It's attempting to be as real world as possible, as far as actions go.

You wouldn't all of a sudden say "HEY A KNIFE ON ANOTHER KNIFE WOULD BE GREAT FOR KILLIN ZOMBIESSSSS" after killing 12 zombies.

-It shouldn't be about character progress, it should be about player progress.

If a player thinks "Hey, if I tape a chainsaw to this twig, I could kill ZOMBIESSSSS easier!", then they shouldn't have to kill 27 zombies to do that.

It's about the player.

-Having inventive to kill zombies just isn't realistic.

Why would anyone WANT to make contact with a flesh eating monster?

Who WOULDN'T just sneak around them?

I'm saying that there's no need to have an inventive to kill zombies, because there doesn't have to be one. I mean, you can kill them for fun.

Or maybe you're hoping for one of them to drop beans. But besides that, why would anyone just want to go around and kill zombies?

-It's far too easy to kill zombies.

Zombies are way, WAY easy to handle. They have low amounts of health, and it would just be really easy to get OP as fuck weapons.

-Grinding should not be in a game like this.

eh.

There you go, that's it.

[jacksgrin 7]

First,

Thanks for stating your objections. I see your concerns now.

Now allow me clarify what I'm saying

You wouldn't all of a sudden say "HEY A KNIFE ON ANOTHER KNIFE WOULD BE GREAT FOR KILLIN ZOMBIESSSSS" after killing 12 zombies.

-It shouldn't be about character progress, it should be about player progress.

If a player thinks "Hey, if I tape a chainsaw to this twig, I could kill ZOMBIESSSSS easier!", then they shouldn't have to kill 27 zombies to do that.

It's about the player.

-Having inventive to kill zombies just isn't realistic.

Why would anyone WANT to make contact with a flesh eating monster?

True, but all humans gain insight by experience. Sure someone may know how to install an ACOG scope and sight it for 300 yards, but does everyone?

Probably not until they shoot a few zombs and realize that their hitting higher than they aim.

Nobody WANTS to make contact with a flesh eating monster, but you're stuck in this world. Ridding the zombies should be kind of a priority, right?

And what makes you think zombies dropping cans of beans all over the place is more realistic than getting insight on how to kill them better by fighting them.

Zombies don't have backpacks and, last time I checked, fitting a can of beans in a pocket is pretty difficult.

-Grinding should not be in a game like this.

I'm not talking about grinding. I'm talking about putting a skill restriction on upgrading weapons that just happens to add a small system of reward for wiping out infected.

Do you really think that something that requires you to kill like 200 zombies or 5 humans in order to tweak your weapon into god-tier is going to ruin the game?

-It's far too easy to kill zombies.

Zombies are way, WAY easy to handle. They have low amounts of health, and it would just be really easy to get OP as fuck weapons.

Easier than, say, not having to do anything except find the parts to get OP as fuck weapons?

THAT'S what Im talking about. You should still have to find the damn parts. You just cannot use them until you get used to your freaking vanilla weapon a bit.

[Spritzo 2]

I believe OP is trying to say that zombies could drop MORE than just beans, giving players more of an incentive to kill them. Maybe the different types of zombies (civilian, doctor, priest, military) would drop better loot based on the type of zombie they are. Or, zombies could drop rarer loot than what you could normally find in camps or whatnot. For example, maybe military zombies could possibly drop better melee weapons, or in rarer instances, drop silencers for weapons or just SD ammo. <--THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT SHOULD HAPPEN. IT IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.

The list could go on. But this gives players a reason to actually kill zombies for loot instead of just killing zombies to clear out a house that you're stuck in or something similar.

The focus here, I guess, would be to give players more PvE gameplay. Some players don't enjoy PvP as much and would probably want some more PvE action. And let's be honest, right now Dayz is 90% PvP; the other 10% being the time spent avoiding zombies until you have good enough gear to engage in PvP. Zombies really aren't a threat if you know what you're doing, so why not make it more interesting? If players have a reason to shoot zombies, like to obtain the loot I mentioned earlier, it makes zombies more of a threat and provides an incentive to killing them.

tl;dr Killing zombies could result it better loot (loot that would be difficult to find normally, like in camps) based on the zombie's "profession/type." Therefore providing players with more PvE content since Dayz is mostly PvP anyway.

[CreepySalad 108]

I'm not quoting you because I'm on my phone.

With your ACOG zeroing argument, I think that should be something a player notices, not the character.

I think my player experience argument still stands.

With your killing zombies should be your priority argument, I disagree.

Your priority should be to survive. Going out of your way to kill zombies doesn't portray that, and would make the game seem more just like a zombie killing game than a survival one.

It would be far more realistic to not have presets of things you can create, but unfortunately, we need them. I think that there should be no extreme crafting, in my opinion.

Let's take NEO Scavenger, for example. You can't craft a knife to a broom, but everything you can craft doesn't seem over the top or super cool.

I like that. I don't want to be able to craft a tack inside an orange, or an explosive VCR.

I just want to be able to craft simple things, like a scope on a rifle or something.

Anyway, I disagree with all of your points, though I respect them, I just don't think something like that belongs in a game like Day Z.

[Jars (DayZ) 63]

As the mod is now , resources are plentiful and zombies are a minor inconvenience , but if that dynamic was to change , so that resources were scarce , and zombies were a terrible threat , then your incentive to kill zombies would be just to stay geared and healthy .

[jacksgrin 7]

As the mod is now , resources are plentiful and zombies are a minor inconvenience , but if that dynamic was to change , so that resources were scarce , and zombies were a terrible threat , then your incentive to kill zombies would be just to stay geared and healthy .

If anything, resources will get more plentiful with more buildings able to spawn loot in SA. But regardless, when will you ever be motivated to kill zombies to stay geared and healthy? They don't drop anything really and

Everyone just avoids them or kites them until they lose aggro. Never once have I said to myself " self, I am hungry/bleeding/etc I should kill a Z" It has always been "I'm hungry/ bleeding/ thirsty, lets check that apt building"

[jacksgrin 7]

Anyway, I disagree with all of your points, though I respect them, I just don't think something like that belongs in a game like Day Z.

Well, technically you didn't address the last one, which, in my opinion is the most important one.

Old players have no advantage over new spawns that happen to get lucky with loot.

How is THIS realistic? Relying on the randomness of loot to determine who has an advantage in a firefight??

BUT an old player that has done nothing should not have as much of advantage as a semi-new player that goes on all sorts of foraging expeditions or has killed a bunch of zombies.

I have played the game as is, and it is far to easy to loot farm, kill players rinse and repeat.

Within a few hours of being on a server, my friends and I are at 'end game' meaning we have vehicles, tents, and more weapons than we could need. And guess what.

We don't have to kill any zombies.

BUT WE WANT TO. My God do we want to. But why should we? why should we shoot a zombie, waste ammo and alert people and the horde. Simply, there is no reason to.

Arguing that this is not an issue is pointless. Frankly it detracts from the game. What are the point of the zombies anyway? It needs to be addressed and killing zombies needs to be a risk vs reward scenario.

You want it to be about the player, but This is after all, a game. A game where you are playing as a character and, due to the nature, the survival of your character is IMPORTANT. Therefore, your character should be dynamic, changing and getting better. It shouldn't be as easy as

1. Spawn.

2. Acquire top weapon.

3. Acquire vehicle.

4.???

Edited March 4, 2013 by jacksgrin

[GotBeanZ 45]

Had you been doing research, you'd know that Sprocket intends to make loot more scarce. Just because there are more places that you COULD find loot, does not mean you will always find loot there. If there are twice as many places to find loot, but loot is six times rarer, you should conclude that loot would be far less abundant.

Edited March 6, 2013 by GotBeanZ

[jacksgrin 7]

Had you been doing research, you'd know that Sprocket intends to make loot more scarce. Just because there are more places that you COULD find loot, does not mean you will always find loot there. If there are twice as many places to find loot, but loot is six times as tough to find, you should conclude that loot would be far less abundant.

I think you mean 6 times rarer, not 'tough to find',

but, my understanding was that the new loot mechanic meant that loot could spawn in an almost infinite number of places in buildings. Meaning you had to invest more time into searching.

this =/= making loot less common.

*edit* also, when I said research, I meant that I followed the forum rules and searched to see that my suggestion hasn't been posted elsewhere.

Even if it did, how would that make killing zombies worthwhile??

This is the main problem I'm talking about.

Why have zombies if you just avoid them.

Why NOT have a mechanic that rewards you for risking the shot on a zombie. It would add another 'oh shit I hope this works moment' and, not rewarding just a single zed kill, but an ongoing thing. Add a little more PvE to the game.

Right now, if you're a survivor and not a bandit, your main antagonist is food/ water/ shelter. Once you get those, then what? In what part does ' zombies are everywhere ' factor into the PvE game except evading them.

I think that a good mechanic to implement is a system that allows you to progress as a character only when you actually do some zombie killing.

ie. no attaching that laser sight you found until you've gotten 50 zeds or 2 humans with that weapon you got there.

Edited March 4, 2013 by jacksgrin

[Rekli 995]

I think you mean 6 times rarer, not 'tough to find',

but, my understanding was that the new loot mechanic meant that loot could spawn in an almost infinite number of places in buildings. Meaning you had to invest more time into searching.

this =/= making loot less common.

*edit* also, when I said research, I meant that I followed the forum rules and searched to see that my suggestion hasn't been posted elsewhere.

Even if it did, how would that make killing zombies worthwhile??

This is the main problem I'm talking about.

because less loot in a small area....lots of zombies carrying loot....use your fucking brain Edited March 4, 2013 by NeedzBeanz

[jacksgrin 7]

because less loot in a small area....lots of zombies carrying loot....use your fucking brain

You use *Your* fucking brain. That wasn't even a coherent sentence. How can you have less loot in a small area and 'lots of zombie's carrying loot' in the same area and have less loot?

No, more than that, How do you think that zombies without backpacks are going to fit all of this loot into their pockets? You think that's realism?

Once again, contribute to the thread logically, or go somewhere else. God forbid you put some actual brainpower into your post.

once again I'll reiterate the topic.

There is no reason to kill zombies right now. Why should I risk shooting a zombie instead of just checking apartments.

Why should I ever shoot a zombie?

What advantage is there to surviving longer than a new spawn that gets lucky with loot at a military base"

Answer key (provided for you because you can't think)

No reason.

No reason.

Trick question. There is none.

Edited March 4, 2013 by jacksgrin

[Never 237]

The Infected/Zombies need to be the main threat. It really is that plain goddamn simple.

Its been roughly 8/9 months since DayZ first turned up hasn't it? And the Infected are still poorly implemented.

I know they have been tweaked and the engine treats them oddly etc,but really for a zombie survival game, the zombies need so major work still. Has anyone tried coding a completely fresh alternative? Might be worth giving a go.

But basically the modand standalone need zombies that are a total fucking threat, like one is enough to make you rethink your plans threat. Fuck all the crappy 'kill-em-by-the-horde' zeds that people are used to from CoD:Zombies and other console games.

Lets make them 28 days later seriously fucking deranged and bloodthirsty killing machine scary. That way you'd have a 'Zombie killing incentive', the incentive being 'Kill it before it rips your fucking face off.'

[jacksgrin 7]

The Infected/Zombies need to be the main threat. It really is that plain goddamn simple.

Its been roughly 8/9 months since DayZ first turned up hasn't it? And the Infected are still poorly implemented.

I know they have been tweaked and the engine treats them oddly etc,but really for a zombie survival game, the zombies need so major work still. Has anyone tried coding a completely fresh alternative? Might be worth giving a go.

But basically the modand standalone need zombies that are a total fucking threat, like one is enough to make you rethink your plans threat. Fuck all the crappy 'kill-em-by-the-horde' zeds that people are used to from CoD:Zombies and other console games.

Lets make them 28 days later seriously fucking deranged and bloodthirsty killing machine scary. That way you'd have a 'Zombie killing incentive', the incentive being 'Kill it before it rips your fucking face off.'

I agree 100%

But I think that there should be an incentive to pop one off if you can get the opportunity. Not because its easy mindless fun, but because takes the danger of alerting other zombies and tempts the player to risk it.

I also don't think it should be extremely loot based because most of the zombies are just citizens that wouldn't have much more than a wallet, cellphone, and carkeys on them.

Scenario:

you're in a city scavenging with a group of people you see a straggler zombie in an ally

no incentive: stay as quiet as possible no exceptions.

incentive: you need 10 zombies slain with your character to be able to upgrade you're shitty makarov with more capacity or something.

Your friend, STEVE, hates his makarov and decides to try and kill this one to go towards his personal tally.

Steve tries to take out the zombie with an axe. The zombie is alerted and all hell breaks loose. You either Run the fuck out of the city or try to hole up in a house against the horde and hope theres an escape option down the road (preferably by sacrificing steve to the horde)

My reasoning: Just finding the attachment has no amount of skill involved. If you have to survive for a certain amount of time or take out a certain number of zombies to attach it, it adds complexity to the game's progression.

I DON'T think that zombies should be taken lightly in the least. Killing one should be a serious risk. I just think that sometimes you should be rewarded for such a risk.

Edited March 4, 2013 by jacksgrin

[Never 237]

No you shouldn't be rewarded.

Well, your only reward is still being a live afterwards. Thats it.

You are supposed to be trying to stay alive in a zombie apocalypse. It not meant to be an easy fun jaunt killing undead and getting better gear for laying the smackdown on some infected. Its supposed to be a struggle to get from place to place starving to death on the way hoping you can find some food and something better than a hatchet while trying to not get seen by anything human or zombie.

DayZ as tense as fuck when it first started, the way it is now with people with stacks of ammo and guns just ganking each other for fun was lost that tension totally.

You should be forced to keep moving, be constantly under threat and thankful when you find a scrap of food and a few makarov bullets.

That way your experience and survival is based entirely on your reactions, your choices, and your planning.

Make it risk meets reward, so if you stick to the farms you might get a few infected but not many but only poor lot like shotguns etc, But if you do choose to try your luck in that police station is the small town by the coast you are making that choice to enter an area thats more likely to be populated,by infected AND other hungry players.

But getting bonuses for killing? Nah, no way.

[thesodesa 99]

incentive: you need 10 zombies slain with your character to be able to upgrade you're shitty makarov with more capacity or something.

Your friend, STEVE, hates his makarov and decides to try and kill this one to go towards his personal tally.

Steve tries to take out the zombie with an axe. The zombie is alerted and all hell breaks loose. You either Run the fuck out of the city or try to hole up in a house against the horde and hope theres an escape option down the road (preferably by sacrificing steve to the horde)

My reasoning: Just finding the attachment has no amount of skill involved. If you have to survive for a certain amount of time or take out a certain number of zombies to attach it, it adds complexity to the game's progression.

I DON'T think that zombies should be taken lightly in the least. Killing one should be a serious risk. I just think that sometimes you should be rewarded for such a risk.

This type of magical weapon upgrade system is what the dev team (and pretty much 90% of the community from what I've read) seems to want to shy away from, based on everything they have stated in the interviews done so far. You've probably heard Rocket say the phrase: "If players can do it in real life, they should be able to do it in game". This means that to operate or upgrade a gun or fix anything in the game you are required to know something about the procedure, so your 'requires no skill or knowledge-argument doesn't really stand. All of the tooltips in the player inventory giving information on the weapon/item being observed are probably going to be removed in the standalone, so it's not like you can cheat by looking up info in a game menu.

Again, like previous posters have stated, the whole point of this game seems to be to teach people about survival, just like Arma 2 was used in some militaries as a teaching tool to teach tactics and military theory. It's a player centric game, not a player avatar centric game.

[jacksgrin 7]

This type of magical weapon upgrade system is what the dev team (and pretty much 90% of the community from what I've read) seems to want to shy away from, based on everything they have stated in the interviews done so far. You've probably heard Rocket say the phrase: "If players can do it in real life, they should be able to do it in game". This means that to operate or upgrade a gun or fix anything in the game you are required to know something about the procedure, so your 'requires no skill or knowledge-argument doesn't really stand. All of the tooltips in the player inventory giving information on the weapon/item being observed are probably going to be removed in the standalone, so it's not like you can cheat by looking up info in a game menu.

Again, like previous posters have stated, the whole point of this game seems to be to teach people about survival, just like Arma 2 was used in some militaries as a teaching tool to teach tactics and military theory. It's a player centric game, not a player avatar centric game.

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not advocating a magical upgrade system -- in the SA they want to add weapon attachements, right?

I don't think that a new spawn should just be able to add an attachment if they get lucky enough to find if right off the bat. I'm advocating for a sort of...middle goal that you must achive (be it survival time, zombie tally whatever) before you can just 'magically' attach that god-tier upgrade. This simulates that the average person (who is probably a citizen) must first get used to the vanilla weapon and gain some expertise in that area before adding something that will make it easier, or more powerful to use.

[Blu3 (DayZ) 1]

I just made a topic that kinda relates to this guys, check it out.