Gagging and Binding

[liquidmind 320]

Regardless of if you deserve to die or not, you shouldn't be able to force someone to stay logged in.

If you don't force people to stay logged in, they combat-log. Being close to someone else, prevents you from logging out. so if they keep you on a spot, guarded, you can't log out anyways. no matter if you are tied or not.

But if you can struggle to prevent them from holding you, run fast (as you have no gear on you) and maybe even get a small adrenaline boost, you might escape your captors, run the "get out of cuffs" animation, that makes you free yourself and log out when away far enough. Even if the escape doesn't work, at worst they shoot you. They could do the same now. 1 guy shoots you, the other guy patches you back up. You stay in combat and can't log..

Nothing you couldn't do right now would be added, but I think a lot of good could come from it, regarding players paranoia.

Inventory check? That's called looking in their backpacks.

I think he ment seeing the inventory that's on the body. There is no way to see what a player has on him, without killing him first. So the reward for killing someone is high. Being able to at least see the inventory of a player, would give a reason to rob. He couldn't just say "no, I don't have NVGs, GPS,... ", you could check for yourself and force him to give it to you.

[shadowjack 254]

A hostage situation in circumstances like this is not likely to turn out well for the captive. If the captors want you dead your gonna be dead. Best chance, slim as it may be is to make your break before you are bound and gagged. Drop your pack and make your break. If all they want is gear you may make it.

Personally i see no purpose to take captives. You want to rob then rob. You want to kill then kill. Taking captives is for griefers.

[Rage VG 4033]

If you don't force people to stay logged in, they combat-log. Being close to someone else, prevents you from logging out. so if they keep you on a spot, guarded, you can't log out anyways. no matter if you are tied or not.

So what is the point of implementing it?

I don't quite understand your opinion, still. You say our opinions simply clash, but you didn't even reply to my arguments pertaining to griefing. You brought up suicide, yes, but you only mentioned griefing, without actually explaining it given what I said.

Sigh...

I have already told you, the only things you can change to prevent it being griefable would end up make it pretty much pointless and not worth the time it'd take to implement it and squash all the bugs. I said that 3 or 4 posts ago and that hasn't changed. Like I said...

I seem to find that I'm repeating myself here.

Now, both my "argument" and your "argument" are based upon things neither of us can provide concrete proof of (I can't prove every single player would rather die than be someone's hostage, you can't prove that people would be so willing to co-operate at such a level as to allow being tied up. I can't prove how difficult it would be to implement, and you can't prove how easy it would be), there is no feasible way to prove these and all that either of us can go on is our own speculation, hence clashing opinions. We can sit here and bang heads together all day over it, but I don't think that's a productive way to spend time.

[Very Ape 748]

So what is the point of implementing it?

Sigh...

I have already told you, the only things you can change to prevent it being griefable would end up make it pretty much pointless and not worth the time it'd take to implement it and squash all the bugs. I said that 3 or 4 posts ago and that hasn't changed. Like I said...

Now, both my "argument" and your "argument" are based upon things neither of us can provide concrete proof of (I can't prove every single player would rather die than be someone's hostage, you can't prove that people would be so willing to co-operate at such a level as to allow being tied up. I can't prove how difficult it would be to implement, and you can't prove how easy it would be), there is no feasible way to prove these and all that either of us can go on is our own speculation, hence clashing opinions. We can sit here and bang heads together all day over it, but I don't think that's a productive way to spend time.

But I said why it would be cool to be implemented. :o

Leverage over your hostage. Just because people can abort (they'll die if they do), it doesn't mean they will. He'll probably still be attached to whatever gear you'll have left him-- binding someone isn't only useful in robberies, but if you want to 'secure' another survivor while you're busy looting or whatnot. It is very practical for the non-lethal bandit or hero.

It also adds for some fun situations. Imagine seeing a group of survivors with a hostage in tow! The aesthetic reasons would be enough, frankly. Yes, it's somewhat novel, but that's what makes the game fun-- it immerses you even more. :P

As for difficulty of implementation, that's to be considered, but it doesn't seem unrealistic. Of course, there are more pressing features, but this shouldn't be off the table just because it's not 'top priority.'

And again, you don't need to change anything to make it not griefable. Players already have the ability to alt+f4, and already do so when they're being griefed.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Very Ape

[Rage VG 4033]

And again, you don't need to change anything to make it not griefable. Players already have the ability to alt+f4, and already do so when they're being griefed.

You know your idea's bad when you expect players to use exploits to avoid it.

[Very Ape 748]

You know your idea's bad when you expect players to use exploits to avoid it.

Yeah, there certainly is problems with the abort system.

Your wording is a bit abusive. By no means does it have to be an exploit; it's punishable by death, so there's no gain. I expect players to alt+f4 when they're being griefed; I don't know how many times I need to say it. People won't kill themselves just because they've been tied up once; same reason why they don't kill themselves when you ask them to drop their guns. I'm not being very clear, I think.

Perhaps it should be revamped in such a way that the abort button isn't grayed out, but warns that if you abort you'll commit suicide.

Of course, this wouldn't be a 'suicide button', so to speak. You would have to be in what is now considered an 'inappropriate' situation.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Very Ape

[Rage VG 4033]

Your wording is a bit abusive. By no means does it have to be an exploit; it's punishable by death, so there's no gain. I expect players to alt+f4 when they're being griefed; I don't know how many times I need to say it.

Which, as I have said many times (It's almost like I said I'm repeating myself), I personally believe will be the vast majority of cases. There is no way you can disprove this, and there's no way I can confirm it. How many times do I have to say that?

People won't kill themselves just because they've been tied up once; same reason why they don't kill themselves when you ask them to drop their guns. I'm not being very clear, I think.

The reason they don't kill themselves when you ask them to drop their guns is because there is still a fighting chance at escaping. Not the case when you're bound and gagged. You are virtually fucked.

Lo and behold, it's another part of your argument that's based on something you can't give concrete proof of; For what reason would someone not want to take control of when their captivity ends, if they believe that death awaits them at the end anyway? Even if that's not always the case, you cannot prove it won't happen. So you can't tell me "No, you're wrong because X will happen, not Y." You can't even prove it won't be the majority of cases. But yet again...

I seem to find that I'm repeating myself here.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Rage VG

[DayZoey 110]

I have to throw my lot in with the "Why bother" side of this debate.

If for whatever reason someone catches you off guard and holds you at gunpoint to drop all of your stuff and for whatever reason lets you live, you're still in the same position you'd be in if you just commit suicide to start over. So why wouldn't you if they take all your stuff and then demand that you come with them?

The exact same applies to this gagging and binding option, nothing has changed except your chances of escape (not survival but escape) are even further diminished from when the other person has (presumably) an automatic weapon aimed at you or multiple people aiming multiple weapons at you. So... honestly I don't see it as being anything but an extra grief tool for the douchebags that have nothing better to do with their time than give other people a hard time.

Unless of course...

1) There is some sort of experience/skill system introduced. Nothing elaborate or "number" based like World of Warcraft or shit like that. Something that introduces gradual character improvement (The more you do of something, the better you are at doing it) to the point where people who've had the same character for awhile won't want to lose all that progress to a griefer or a group of people taking them hostage. Gear can be replaced but building skill in gutting animals, running for longer distances without getting tired and such would be a pain to have to start from scratch.

2) There was some sort of benefit to actually letting the player go when you were done with them or for freeing bound players (buddies stage a rescue mission for instance). Maybe regaining some humanity or karma, or getting closer to a "hero" status of the game (Of course to prevent people from farming humanity or karma, one person can't gain humanity or karma from freeing the same people over and over again that they tie up).

3) People weren't such douche bags. Seriously this is a huge one, because I'm so optimistic sometimes there could be a group of bandits that tie me up and drag me off to heaven knows where after stealing all my stuff that lead me on the entire time. Three hours later, they shoot me in the head and log off. Well that's great, I just wasted three hours looking for a chance to keep playing when it would have been just faster to kill myself and move on. In light of this third point, I don't think this is something that will be implemented or widely used. The only use I could see for it is incapacitating someone from contributing to a firefight, like if you caught a lone member of an enemy team you could tie him up to remove the threat he would pose to you in the oncoming exchange of bullets.

Also I'd like to mention the gag part of it is pretty useless. Yeah sure it stops them from talking in game over direct and such, nothing stopping them from talking over Skype or TeamSpeak to their friends telling them exactly how many there are, what they are armed with and which direction they're going. So... unless you have a way for a game to be programmed to disable all third party chat programs in existence when they are gagged... I don't see this working.

[Orest 3]

I am neutral to this idea as long as it does not involve the deliverance scene or similar idea.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

YOu guys who are worried about griefing need to chill a little bit, sometimes unexpected things are what keeps a game interesting. Enough of this "only on my own terms" crap.