The Dayz Dichotomy.

[Hatikvah 0]

While the tents and vehicles might be at odds at with single life / perma death they really need to be there as they offer the progression the game needs to keep the game from turning into spawn-loot a gun-kill someone-die-repeat imo. The fact people go looking for tents and vehicles to loot/steal gives the game another dimension in terms of PvP and general level of tension. Hell someone might be looting my tent right now and I not even playing, personally I think that real world crossover tension is hilarious.

You can play Dayz as a deathmatch.

You can play Dayz as a lone survivor.

You can play Dayz as a clan.

All valid ways people play. Their also nearly always in conflict with one another but then I thought that was kind of the point. I'd be amazed if the community wasn't at each others throats or looking to have the game improved for their groups benefit. After all that's what the game is sort of designed to do.

[Yammazul 0]

One of the debates in another thread has crystallised my thoughts on what could be a fundamental problem in Dayz.

The game is at complete odds with itself. It's essentially two different games. And I think this is where the friction on this forum is rooted.

On one had you have a survival game' date=' you start alone and vulnerable, full of fear , uncertainty. You die often but then finally break through that barrier and escape into the wilds. If you are lucky or skill full you survive. If you die , it s anew start , a new beginning. It can be incredibly immersive, stressful, frustrating, rewarding. Either way it's an emotional experience.

On the other hand you have a clan, you are on TS, you have a camp, you are tooled up. If you die your mates pick you up in a car give you your gear back and welcome you with open arms, not as a new survivor but as their friend reincarnated. this game is fun, its a great laugh. Other people you encounter though are a threat nothing more and are dealt with harshly.

These seem to me to be two different games. The game mechanics punish both of these play styles with one hand and reward them with the other. The direction of the game is torn between the two.

The forum highlights these differences, you have people calling for teamplay: factions, trading, spawn on friends, safe zones.

And on the other side those clamouring for it to be more hardcore and less friendly.

Is there a way to reconcile the differences inherent in the game and make everyone happy ?

Or should Dayz focus on one side of this divide ?

[/quote']

You are right, they would are at odds and that's the point I think, not everyone would react the same in this situation, some would lone wolf, some would form groups, these two type of player/s will clash from time to time. There shouldn't be one way of playing the game. Are you suggesting that one of these play styles should be punished or removed?

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Not at all Yamm.

I love the sanbox. I just wonder if the game as it stands is pushing people in different directions in a negative way.

Perma death + long term goals. Its a a strange combination don't you think ?

The harder the game gets the more it punishes people trying to achieve long term goals. Those people also no longer see themselves as a new survivor, but the same one reincarnated.

The harder it gets the more the players that enjoy "just" surviving thrive.

I myself have found it really frustrating on occasions trying to organise a group of players. And also found it a relief when I've died, freed of all my possessions starting again I found the initial part of the game more rewarding. But find myself once again trying to build up permanent bases.

There are inherent contradictions here and I just wonder if Dayz should lean one way or the other and make a game that does what it does better ? Rather than trying to do everything ?

[Yammazul 0]

Not at all Yamm.

I love the sanbox. I just wonder if the game as it stands is pushing people in different directions in a negative way.

Perma death + long term goals. Its a a strange combination don't you think ?

The harder the game gets the more it punishes people trying to achieve long term goals. Those people also no longer see themselves as a new survivor' date=' but the same one reincarnated.

The harder it gets the more the players that enjoy "just" surviving thrive.

I myself have found it really frustrating on occasions trying to organise a group of players. And also found it a relief when I've died, freed of all my possessions starting again I found the initial part of the game more rewarding. But find myself once again trying to build up permanent bases.

There are inherent contradictions here and I just wonder if Dayz should lean one way or the other and make a game that does what it does better ? Rather than trying to do everything ?

[/quote']

Yeah I know what you mean, were this mod something akin to Minecraft with never ending generated map (not possible ofc) I think it would be easier for the base builders and survivalists to thrive and set up long term outposts but given the limited (although still staggeringly huge) size of the map, all bases and hideouts will be located (and probably sabotaged) in some way eventually. Hopefully in the future something can be done to accommodate this type of group play long term but it is sadly lacking as it stands due to the current nature of the mod.

I’m sure Rocket will find a way eventually to accommodate both styles of play but I would have to agree that the PvP/Solo mentality is prevailing more so than the other than the other due to the mods ability to better reward that particular play style.

Perhaps there should be a fallout bunker that is added to the map, only the most powerful group of players could control it, perhaps have it instanced (much like mmo dungeons) so that you could have a safe haven for the controlling faction. Not sure how you would decide how to gain control of it though, nevertheless defend it as people can’t be online 24/7 and I’m not sure survivor/guard "bots" around the bunker would be the way to....I did read something about Rocket adding armbands for teams of friends/survivors who had allied with each other? If that is the case then perhaps they could have a system where, those players would have to gain control of several radio towers across the map, having to control and defend them for a period of time simultaneously means only a well organised group of survivors could pull it off. This could unlock access to the instanced bunker giving control of the bunker to over to said faction. Were it to be attacked by a rival group of survivors though (because its instanced) the attacking faction wouldn’t get the same bunker instance as you, so they couldn’t raid your supplies, the reward would be the bunker and the safety and storage if provides. Were your group of friends to retake the bunker later on, your supplies would be intact inside when you retake the base.

That’s just off the top of my head, probably wouldn't work :-/

P.S To answer your point about focusing on the style of play the game does better, I would have to disagree, a sandbox, for me at least, is having the freedom to play the way I want, not being pushed in one direction or another, lets not forget, this game is early in development, there is plenty of time to iron out and nail down these tough problems.

---

Honestly' date=' even though it's one of it's greatest strengths, the lack of stated purpose this mod has is going to become a real problem very soon, a house divided cannot stand.

[/quote']

Come on man, Minecraft didn't tell you how to play, that was the most successful indie in years (all time?). What you said is true in general however but for the rule there is always the exception, Minecraft was the exception to this rule, so too (imo) is Day Z.

[aragos 1]

-First, thanks guys for the first thoughtful post I've read in a while. Getting a bit tired of "Im notta cheeter, why I banned?" and "I'm the l33t noob killa and ur fail" type of posts.

--Good points and discussion.

My .50. First, if you put story lines, quests, character classes, stats, or whatever in this game, you'll kill it. You'll have Fallout with Zeds. Been done.

If you lessen the brutality of the game, you'll kill it. Since you've only got gear--all of which can be gotten again--as a measure of 'success' in the game (and yeah, I know, its about survival...I'm talking about what you have to lose by dying), then dying becomes a core part of defining the game. Even the most competent player will goof up, hit the wrong key, and be killed. That is what makes the game actually challenging.

The last--very last--thing you want to do is force a player into a defined playing style. Safe zones, et al, will force cooperation, and so on. Everyone with a M4 at start will push the game into PvP. And so on. Every action taken has second and third order effects. If you give a player all the basic survival gear at start (knife, etc.) then reduce the number of canned beans, suddenly cows become the sought resource. And players move out of the cities and into the fields to fight. Second and third order effects.

I think it would be neat to rebuild buildings, etc. but that would also have the potential of ruining the experience. The shift would go from individual survival to group SimCity like operations. First ones to get the Factory running could build vehicles--that would then shift the nature of the game to Stalingrad-like fights over the Factory. And so on.

Personally, I don't think the game's core mechanics--whatever they are--need to be modified for one group or another. That said, I don't think it needs a "goal" other than survival itself. I suspect most gamers have played the Civilization series. How many games have you played to the absolute end? If you don't conquer the world, then why play? Ah...the playing itself is the answer. You play to be challenged, to build (or destroy) or whatever. In contrast, there are the RPGs that force you along a predetermined pattern to 'finish the game.' Find the magic doodad, return to wizard, save kingdom. Rinse and repeat. In those games (and ultimately, this includes most single player FPS games as well), you actually have very little choice. The 'cool' part becomes things like graphics, music and so on.

Sort of like making a movie versus watching a movie. I prefer making my own experience, but I get that others would just rather do 1-2-3-4 series of actions to 'win.'

[TheGoldElite 0]

I will say that the game is what it is, and how people adapt to it should be left to their own devices. So long a people are challenged and afraid, it's good.

Also I very much enjoyed reading this debate, and applaud your mature reasoning, all involved :) 5star thread

[Yammazul 0]

I will say that the game is what it is' date=' and how people adapt to it should be left to their own devices. So long a people are challenged and afraid, it's good.

Also I very much enjoyed reading this debate, and applaud your mature reasoning, all involved :) 5star thread

[/quote']

[Gibbonici 9]

I don't think DayZ is going in two directions. As far as I see it's going in its own direction and a lot of the community conflict comes from us not knowing what the fuck to make of it.

It's not just PvP/deathmatch, it's not just rolling with mates and laughing it up, it's not just hiding in the woods trying to survive for one more day. It's all of those things and none of them were by design.

I love what Rocket's doing here, making a world to let us play how we want within it's genre context, and I'm constantly excited by watching both the game take shape *and* the way we all choose to play it. It's pretty inspiring to be honest.

To all the CoD kiddies, the carebears, the clanners, the hermits, the lone snipers, the bean warriors, to the guys I've met who have shot me in cold blood, to the ones I met in the middle of nowhere and swapped supplies with, to the arsehole who shot me when I was spawning and to the guy who gave me some painkillers when I needed them and then took me on a boat ride - I love you all. Seriously.

This is some gaming history in the making here, there are ideas and mechanics in DayZ that will bleed out into the mainstream that so many of us have become disillusioned with and I bet gaming will never be the same after DayZ for a lot of us.

And we're all part of it. We get to see it all happening from the inside, and more than that, in our own tiny little random ways we're helping to shape it. Take a step back and look at where we are in the bigger picture.

It doesn't suck to be us.

[Cyric (DayZ) 254]

Maybe you misunderstand me. Or I you. In any case' date=' I'm not saying the paper is blank because it hasn't been written on [i']yet I'm saying rocket is purposefully leaving the paper blank and giving players the tools to write on it themselves.

Each individual player gets to decide what DayZ is to them. I had this same debate with someone about people who use web maps and loot tables. If you want to play the game as a virtual cartographer - learning every nook and cranny of the game by sight and heart - then go do that. The fact that I am not interested in doing that and instead use online maps and loot sheets to determine my route is really irrelevant. The game has no singular goal so the paths we take don't have to somehow be synchronized via the "greater vision" of the game. We don't even necessarily have the same goals. Our paths may never intersect at all - and if they do, well your Winny is as good as mine.

Playing as a team has many benefits if your goal is to achieve the sorts of things that teams are better at achieving. Maybe gathering the best equipment in the game and repairing vehicles isn't really what you're into at the moment. It really doesn't matter. You're not competing against the people who are for the same thing. You're just sharing a space and both making each other's experience more interesting for it.

As long as rocket stays true to his vision of providing not rules and restrictions and predetermined goals and instead simply provides freedom, mechanics and tools and allows players to craft the game as THEY see fit for their own individual subjective experiences, he will have succeeded. As soon as he starts saying "This is the one sacrosanct way to play the game and all others are verbotten henceforth" then the game starts to fail in my opinion.

This is precisely why calls for artificial restrictions on PvP are met with such derision here. The fact that, if people so choose, their goal in the game can be to find and murder me adds dramatic value to whatever goals I may set for myself. No matter what I do or how I play, I have to consider that not everyone has the same goals and motivations as me because the game doesn't force them to in any arbitrary way with a silly set of "rewards" and "slaps on the wrist" when players behave in ways accordant or discordant with the will of the machine.

This post right here is absolutely brilliant. Immense respect for you after this, Zed.

[aragos 1]

I don't think DayZ is going in two directions. As far as I see it's going in its own direction and a lot of the community conflict comes from us not knowing what the fuck to make of it.

It's not just PvP/deathmatch' date=' it's not just rolling with mates and laughing it up, it's not just hiding in the woods trying to survive for one more day. It's all of those things and none of them were by design.

I love what Rocket's doing here, making a world to let us play how we want within it's genre context, and I'm constantly excited by watching both the game take shape *and* the way we all choose to play it. It's pretty inspiring to be honest.

To all the CoD kiddies, the carebears, the clanners, the hermits, the lone snipers, the bean warriors, to the guys I've met who have shot me in cold blood, to the ones I met in the middle of nowhere and swapped supplies with, to the arsehole who shot me when I was spawning and to the guy who gave me some painkillers when I needed them and then took me on a boat ride - I love you all. Seriously.

This is some gaming history in the making here, there are ideas and mechanics in DayZ that will bleed out into the mainstream that so many of us have become disillusioned with and I bet gaming will never be the same after DayZ for a lot of us.

And we're all part of it. We get to see it all happening from the inside, and more than that, in our own tiny little random ways we're helping to shape it. Take a step back and look at where we are in the bigger picture.

It doesn't suck to be us.

[/quote']

Thoughtful posts like this make this the most important thread on the board.

[GameJeff100 1]

Great thread.

To me Dayz is about survival and exploring. If the Bandits were not there it would not be that fun. Just knowing they exist makes it exciting to go into a town for supplies. My friend says it this way, "what type of adventure do you want today?"

That is what I like best about this game. Dayz is what the player makes of it to be

[srvrsyde 9]

The forum highlights these differences' date=' you have people calling for teamplay: factions, trading, spawn on friends, safe zones.

And on the other side those clamoring for it to be more hardcore and less friendly.

[/quote']

i say add the teamplay options. just because this game is about survival doesn't mean you have to survive alone. the hardcore players can play hardcore, it's all about play style. allowing both sides to play as they choose is the most important part of the game.

there should also be the ability to turn these features off. servers are the playground, they dictate the rules. give the hardcore servers the option to turn off the trading, the talking, the togetherness but allow the regular servers to turn them on