Why is everyone I meet an ***hole?

[funionz 7]

My point was about you are particular(Or rather' date=' you example if it is real) with your specific post. Your enhancement does come from ruining it for others.

The only thing I worry is if enough people are ran away from the game, would it be worth it for Rocket to continue? He runs on donations now, but I expect at some point this will become a charge game. If that occurs, I would be afraid not many would get this from reputation or demo, etc.

[/quote']

I get what you're saying, but 'ruining' has a much wider definition. It also implies that the random person I shot felt the game was ruined by me killing them. It could be a person like me who accepts their death and moves on, or it could be someone like the others, and runs crying to the forums/side chat. There's just too many variables. But saying i'm 'ruining' someone elses game I feel is a bit overkill, hackers ruin peoples games, people who spawncamp the beach can 'ruin' someones game, etc.

As far as running people off, even if we ran off half the playerbase, at 20 bucks a pop the game would still be insanely successful.

---

No' date=' how does making names static and having players control the rep of other players(with meta-data) equal a god complex? its more like an out of game bounty-board.

[/quote']

Because a name implies an identity, which implies the same exact thing I was just talking about. You want some way of tying someone to their various misdeeds, and it's completely unrealistic.

Taking it back to your explanation, if I shot you in the middle of nowhere, how would those people know that I am the one who did it? Would they have a magic bounty board that has names that materialize on it whenever someone dies? The whole idea behind the game is when you die, you're dead. You're not actually respawning, you are a new survivor starting out on the beach, so why would you retain knowledge of who did what? Adding this feature would be the same as making tag visible servers mandatory.

Ok than how about tie players to their forum names, and not in-game this way we can tell what level of asshole everyone is, just not in game. >.> You seem to want to keep online gaming completely anonymous but quite frankly I wish players had to tools to bitch slap every bandit and KOS player just like they have done to me till I just started avoided other players in a multiplayer game.

That would be fine in my opinion, as long as there's no frame of reference ingame as to what the persons name is (i.e. no visual tag)

It's not about making online gaming 'anonymous', it's just that this particular game calls for it. Stop being so angry about being killed, it seems your suggestions come mostly from frustration about being killed, rather than thinking about the long lasting effects that your idea would have on the game. It's that instant gratification, knee-jerk response that fuels 95% of the crappy suggestions on this forum.

I can understand not wanting the game to say your a bad person for killing this guy, but why not let meta gaming do its thing and have players with evidence call you a bad person and allow the community to control player reputations. Its better than the bandit system because the game doesn't say anything, any judgement made about you is done so by your fellow gamers.

Ok, but what good will it do? If I have my current humanity displayed under my avatar or username, what good will that do? I can already tell you one of the effects, it will turn any civil discussion (like the one we are having now) into a flamewar because someone will undoubtedly bring up their negative humanity and how it somehow negates their opinion. You want to place an arbitrary number on someone that doesn't exist, thats where you aren't understanding.

If side chat is disabled, if tags are disabled, how are you supposed to identify this person ingame? The problem with this idea is that it will always be flawed. Hell even a person with surplus humanity, Mr. Good Guy, could suddenly get bored and go on a killing spree and piss someone off. There's just no good way, nor reason to implement some sort of identification system.

[bluester 0]

DayZ caters to the straight up dick in everyone. Only real men resist it and act like decent human beings' date=' but people assume personality will go out the window in an apocalypse.

The truth is, DayZ suffers from people thinking it's some last bastion of hope for griefing and trolling, which is total bollocks. Also, the people go relatively unchecked unless they directly attack rocket, so there's this general "everyone can be a douchebag" air not only in the game but on the forums.

So yes, THIS is the face of the "hardcore" community, understand why they were ignored for so long? Casuals may have liked it easier, but at least they knew how to behave in a public forum. It's up to the legit gamers to take back the community and show that we can play and last in the hardcore world of DayZ without being exploiting and trolling cowards.

[/quote']

I was gonna reply, but why bother when I can quote something which says pretty much what I was gonna say anyway. +1

What is the 'hardcore' community?

--

Today was the first time in months someone has actually made me angry after they followed me, an unarmed survivor, into a warehouse and proceeded to shoot me in the back. I think you'd probably have to be a bit of a maladjusted dicksplash in real life to think that's an ok thing to do in a game.

[Swineflew 480]

The beauty of this game is in it's penalty of death. I love the fact that people are cautious of each other, that's actually a very important part of a zombie movie/game.

The distrust and true human nature of the "every man for himself" mentality of a survival game shines in DayZ.

[FunkyHermitCrab (DayZ) 95]

I survived for 11 days, and then the first time I spawned in 1.7.1.1 I got shot in the face at the "Loading Screen". No idea who shot me.

Then after spawning in 1.7.1.2 I got D/C'd in a barn, when I re-connected there were three guys in the barn, so I took out my flashlight and started crouch walking out of the barn. One of the guys with a whinny sees me, and blasts my face off with no warning.

I dont understand why people murder others in this game other than pure sport...

[funionz 7]

I survived for 11 days' date=' and then the first time I spawned in 1.7.1.1 I got shot in the face at the "Loading Screen". No idea who shot me.

Then after spawning in 1.7.1.2 I got D/C'd in a barn, when I re-connected there were three guys in the barn, so I took out my flashlight and started crouch walking out of the barn. One of the guys with a whinny sees me, and blasts my face off with no warning.

I dont understand why people murder others in this game other than pure sport...

[/quote']

To be fair I would of shot you also, nothing to say you didn't wander through and didn't see them and you could be a threat. They could of been looking for food and been desperate, another valid reason to take you out.

[septuscap 42]

With all new technology' date=' problems arise, but gamers failed by not dealing with it and being indifferent to it when it started, and now Doug Douchebag and Restraining Order Rick are the mainstream audience that the "hardcore" community has as their face.

[/quote']

What you're complaining about is just the PvP playstyle though. This happens in every sandbox game. One guy wants to PvP, another guy wants to PvE, the PvE guy says the PvP guy is playing it wrong.

There is nothing stopping you from saturating a server with PvE players if that's what you want to do. It just so happens it's easier to saturate a server with PvP players because that's what most people want to do in a sandbox game with PvP. That's not to say we don't want to see interesting group dynamics, trade cities, etc. But the two are not mutually exclusive. You act like PvP'ing is a crime in this game.

[Royce59 19]

These type of reactions are why you have to respect Day-Z, they are the absolute most realistic scenario in an apocalyptic scene.

There will not be a lot of survivors.

Most of the people who survive are going to kill you to try to survive themselves.

Maybe 5% of the people you meet are "actually" friendly.

In real life, that is exactly what would happen, and after time you get desensitized and dont speak to them or acknolodge them. Either take them down or be taken down, its that mentality that makes this game so nerve-wrecking.

[septuscap 42]

If side chat is disabled' date=' if tags are disabled, how are you supposed to identify this person ingame? The problem with this idea is that it will always be flawed. Hell even a person with surplus humanity, Mr. Good Guy, could suddenly get bored and go on a killing spree and piss someone off. There's just no good way, nor reason to implement some sort of identification system.

[/quote']

Tags might be disabled, but direct chat/voice isn't.

1. You can implement a friend list. So if we have each other marked as friends, we get tags on mouse-over for each other. In terms of "realism" it would make up for the fact that we're all running around with the same skin and would realistically be able to recognize our friends from strangers.

2. Branding some one a bandit (via the "P" menu for example) could make their name show up red in the userlist, as well as in direct voice/chat. Or orange if one of your friends has branded him a bandit. Or yellow if a friend of a friend has branded him as a bandit.

Now you can say it's not "realistic" because each respawn is a new life, but you and I both know that's bullshit. You know where you were killed in your "previous life," you're still friends with all the same people in your new life, you know where to loot your old corpse, where your tents are, etc. So hiding behind realism in this case is just complete bullshit.

If you need a "realistic" rationale, there is word of mouth, and reputation of gangs. Bandit blacklists making your name red in the userlist/chat is the best I can come up with.

[stratblues24@hotmail.com 4]

Been playing this game for a few days. Never last longer than 15 minutes or so really. Never find any food or water. Found a weapon once, but ended up starving to death anyway.

Today, I finally get a break. Found a rifle, some ammo, bandages, food and pepsi. Got excited thinking I was actually going to last a little while.

Run into another player. We rounded corners and came face to face. I have a rifle, he has a flashlight. Being the kind of guy I am, I dont fire. He trails in a handful of zombies, and the fight is on. He is able to take one down with the hatchet that I GAVE HIM. But, he cant fight off the other 4. Rifle fire cracks as I come to the rescue. Zombies down, he bandages up and goes about his way...so I thought.

I turn to peek at the Zombies for any gear, find some stuff nearby that Im sorting through.

Whack Whack Whack

I get out of the clunky inventory screen to turn just in time to see that same guy now burying a hatchet...MY HATCHET...into my skull.

Game Over.

...so, henceforth...everyone dies. I am NOT friendly.

:@

[funionz 7]

If side chat is disabled' date=' if tags are disabled, how are you supposed to identify this person ingame? The problem with this idea is that it will always be flawed. Hell even a person with surplus humanity, Mr. Good Guy, could suddenly get bored and go on a killing spree and piss someone off. There's just no good way, nor reason to implement some sort of identification system.

[/quote']

Tags might be disabled, but direct chat/voice isn't.

1. You can implement a friend list. So if we have each other marked as friends, we get tags on mouse-over for each other. In terms of "realism" it would make up for the fact that we're all running around with the same skin and would realistically be able to recognize our friends from strangers.

A friends list? Seems like a ton of work for something that could be solved by using voice chat and telling eachother where you are, though I do agree the skin selection could use some work

2. Branding some one a bandit (via the "P" menu for example) could make their name show up red in the userlist, as well as in direct voice/chat. Or orange if one of your friends has branded him a bandit. Or yellow if a friend of a friend has branded him as a bandit.

One little problem with this, most bandits don't use VOIP nor chat in the first place, so it would be irrelevant.

Now you can say it's not "realistic" because each respawn is a new life, but you and I both know that's bullshit. You know where you were killed in your "previous life," you're still friends with all the same people in your new life, you know where to loot your old corpse, where your tents are, etc. So hiding behind realism in this case is just complete bullshit.

If you need a "realistic" rationale, there is word of mouth, and reputation of gangs. Bandit blacklists making your name red in the userlist/chat is the best I can come up with.

By that 'rationale', your kills would need to be witnessed to gain word of mouth. Happening across a random body in the middle of nowhere would tell you nothing. Again, too many flawed ways of thinking to implement a wholly useless system to make a few people feel better about their flawed playstyle.

[gizm0 96]

If side chat is disabled' date=' if tags are disabled, how are you supposed to identify this person ingame? The problem with this idea is that it will always be flawed. Hell even a person with surplus humanity, Mr. Good Guy, could suddenly get bored and go on a killing spree and piss someone off. There's just no good way, nor reason to implement some sort of identification system.

[/quote']

Tags might be disabled, but direct chat/voice isn't.

1. You can implement a friend list. So if we have each other marked as friends, we get tags on mouse-over for each other. In terms of "realism" it would make up for the fact that we're all running around with the same skin and would realistically be able to recognize our friends from strangers.

A friends list? Seems like a ton of work for something that could be solved by using voice chat and telling eachother where you are, though I do agree the skin selection could use some work

2. Branding some one a bandit (via the "P" menu for example) could make their name show up red in the userlist, as well as in direct voice/chat. Or orange if one of your friends has branded him a bandit. Or yellow if a friend of a friend has branded him as a bandit.

One little problem with this, most bandits don't use VOIP nor chat in the first place, so it would be irrelevant.

Now you can say it's not "realistic" because each respawn is a new life, but you and I both know that's bullshit. You know where you were killed in your "previous life," you're still friends with all the same people in your new life, you know where to loot your old corpse, where your tents are, etc. So hiding behind realism in this case is just complete bullshit.

If you need a "realistic" rationale, there is word of mouth, and reputation of gangs. Bandit blacklists making your name red in the userlist/chat is the best I can come up with.

By that 'rationale', your kills would need to be witnessed to gain word of mouth. Happening across a random body in the middle of nowhere would tell you nothing. Again, too many flawed ways of thinking to implement a wholly useless system to make a few people feel better about their flawed playstyle.

who's playstyle is flawed? But if we are gonna sit behind the realism factor, lets have it so if you die every item associated with you that isn't on a player gets removed, now for courpses limit it to 5 loots. this way it stops players from hording gear to carry over through lives.

[septuscap 42]

A friends list? Seems like a ton of work for something that could be solved by using voice chat and telling eachother where you are' date=' though I do agree the skin selection could use some work [/quote']

The point would be to create a social fabric spanning friends of friends of friends. Believe it or not, not all 200k players are in a single VOIP server.

And tags for people you really trust makes complete sense, it's absurd that you can't tell a stranger apart from your best friend in-game. Again, not every player is in the same VOIP, and that is a HUGE disincentive to grouping/socializing when the only way to know whether player model #10 is your best friend or a complete stranger is to check over external VOIP or give away your position in-game.

And adding a color value to names in the userlist isn't really that much work for the huge impact it would have on the game.

One little problem with this' date=' most bandits don't use VOIP nor chat in the first place, so it would be irrelevant.[/quote']

That doesn't matter. You still have plenty of bandits playing friendly when it suits them (ie. backstabbing their group, hiding their true colors when a superior force of friendlies shows up, whatever). Of course it would take a while to develop a true reputation as a backstabber, but it would happen, purely via word of mouth and trust networks. You could actually restrict access to trade cities and the like based on social branding. You could corner an individual and give him the option to identify himself (find out if he's a friendly/bandit) or die. That is true player justice.

By that 'rationale'' date=' your kills would need to be witnessed to gain word of mouth. Happening across a random body in the middle of nowhere would tell you nothing. Again, too many flawed ways of thinking to implement a wholly useless system to make a few people feel better about their flawed playstyle.

[/quote']

Of course it's not completely realistic. But it's no less realistic than your bullshit pretense of having each life be completely separate. You're still you after you respawn, whether you're a bandit or survivor. Reputation can't be implemented without an artificial system in this case because there are no visual cues with which to identify players. Most people are differentiable, and reputation can spread on the smallest of visual cues, (blue eyes with a scar across his face, for example, would mark you specifically as a bandit for life if you let one kill get away and he spreads the word).

Obviously my brief outline isn't a complete system -- what if one friend brands you a bandit while another marks you friendly? This is just a simple description showing how an in-game social network of trust would completely change the game.

---

who's playstyle is flawed? But if we are gonna sit behind the realism factor' date=' lets have it so if you die every item associated with you that isn't on a player gets removed

[/quote']

Precisely -- I can't stand when people use the realism argument, because it's always invoked inconsistently, and only to defend their own view.

As for your idea, there is no way for the game to determine which items are "connected" to you -- your new character will still have the same friends who can gear you up on respawn.

[funionz 7]

A friends list? Seems like a ton of work for something that could be solved by using voice chat and telling eachother where you are' date=' though I do agree the skin selection could use some work [/quote']

The point would be to create a social fabric spanning friends of friends of friends. Believe it or not, not all 200k players are in a single VOIP server.

And tags for people you really trust makes complete sense, it's absurd that you can't tell a stranger apart from your best friend in-game. Again, not every player is in the same VOIP, and that is a HUGE disincentive to grouping/socializing when the only way to know whether player model #10 is your best friend or a complete stranger is to check over external VOIP or give away your position in-game.

And adding a color value to names in the userlist isn't really that much work for the huge impact it would have on the game.

One little problem with this' date=' most bandits don't use VOIP nor chat in the first place, so it would be irrelevant.[/quote']

That doesn't matter. You still have plenty of bandits playing friendly when it suits them (ie. backstabbing their group, hiding their true colors when a superior force of friendlies shows up, whatever). Of course it would take a while to develop a true reputation as a backstabber, but it would happen, purely via word of mouth and trust networks. You could actually restrict access to trade cities and the like based on social branding. You could corner an individual and give him the option to identify himself (find out if he's a friendly/bandit) or die. That is true player justice.

By that 'rationale'' date=' your kills would need to be witnessed to gain word of mouth. Happening across a random body in the middle of nowhere would tell you nothing. Again, too many flawed ways of thinking to implement a wholly useless system to make a few people feel better about their flawed playstyle.

[/quote']

Of course it's not completely realistic. But it's no less realistic than your bullshit pretense of having each life be completely separate. You're still you after you respawn, whether you're a bandit or survivor. Reputation can't be implemented without an artificial system in this case because there are no visual cues with which to identify players. Most people are differentiable, and reputation can spread on the smallest of visual cues, (blue eyes with a scar across his face, for example, would mark you specifically as a bandit for life if you let one kill get away and he spreads the word).

Obviously my brief outline isn't a complete system -- what if one friend brands you a bandit while another marks you friendly? This is just a simple description showing how an in-game social network of trust would completely change the game.

---

who's playstyle is flawed? But if we are gonna sit behind the realism factor' date=' lets have it so if you die every item associated with you that isn't on a player gets removed

[/quote']

Precisely -- I can't stand when people use the realism argument, because it's always invoked inconsistently, and only to defend their own view.

As for your idea, there is no way for the game to determine which items are "connected" to you -- your new character will still have the same friends who can gear you up on respawn.

The main issue here still remains that a small minority of overly verbal players want the game to be molded to their playstyle. I have not once mentioned anything to be added or subtracted to better suit my playstyle, why is it that PVE carebears have the right to dumb down the game for everyone else? Why do we need to add color tags and friend lists, bandit databases, etc? Has rocket not said time and time again that he will not hinder any specific playstyle, PVE or PVP?

All these grandiose suggestions that people make, and 99% of them are to benefit themselves.

[Virfortis 111]

What you're complaining about is just the PvP playstyle though. You act like PvP'ing is a crime in this game.

Oh for Cherno's sake' date=' do I have to put EVERYTHING I POST up with a disclaimer?

I shoot people, ALL the time, because they're a threat to me, but I'm not a coast camping dick that rushes around and gets his jollies from racking up killstreaks like some 12 year old with a headset an Xbox Live. If you're the kind of person that just up and says "hey, let's go kill people in Elektro" then you're an asshole, and anyone that agrees that mindless, pointless PvP is somehow "realistic" needs some damn sunlight.

Secondly, I'm not really talking much about the game itself, but I'm CERTAINLY talking about the community and forums. We live in a world where it's somehow considered socially acceptable to not know how to act in public, to be stupid and ignorant, and to be a bigoted, socially inept introvert because hey, we're on the internet!

NO!

THIS kind of behavior and douchebaggery is EXACTLY why the internet is facing such a problem with censorship. The internet is full of piracy, trolling, flaming, and anonymous jackassing that make most TABLOIDS look sensible. DayZ is a PERFECT example of it, trying to portray a more mature and thought provoking game, but being boiled down by people treating it like just another FPS and planning raids like it was some MMORPG. People assume that those with friends are going to die the first 5 minutes an apocalypse hits, to which I call bullshit because it's been proven time and time again in society. The people that die off quickest are the same people that DayZ faces as a disgrace to the community.

These type of reactions are why you have to respect Day-Z, they are the absolute most realistic scenario in an apocalyptic scene.

No, this is as fantasy as fantasy can get. In DayZ, you can do whatever you want and not worry about it because you respawn. People go looking for trouble, and will hunt down people for fun without any regard to safety. In REALITY, natural selection would have cleared those assholes out very quickly, but here they respawn. I'll play the realism card when your game uninstalls on dying.

---

Has rocket not said time and time again that he will not hinder any specific playstyle' date=' PVE or PVP?

[/quote']

PvE gets hindered a lot, as in every time a patch comes out and there are still no zombies in the woods to eat snipers.

[funionz 7]

PvE gets hindered a lot' date=' as in every time a patch comes out and there are still no zombies in the woods to eat snipers.

[/quote']

Personally I liked it much more when the zombie spawn count was bugged and you were scared to move an inch in the cities (1.6 i think?). I ran across a couple zombies in the woods today though dunno if it was a fluke or not, but I also don't snipe from the woods anyways.

But yeah, I do purposely go look for players to kill. Call it being a douchebag or whatever, but it beats looking for supplies when I can just take yours. I don't camp beaches or anything like that though. I've had some pretty wild nights taking out bus loads of people, only to have them come back to retrieve their loot and get killed again. It was some of the best moments i've had in this mod. Second to all that?

Side chat tears.

[septuscap 42]

The main issue here still remains that a small minority of overly verbal players want the game to be molded to their playstyle. I have not once mentioned anything to be added or subtracted to better suit my playstyle' date=' why is it that PVE carebears have the right to dumb down the game for everyone else? Why do we need to add color tags and friend lists, bandit databases, etc? Has rocket not said time and time again that he will not hinder any specific playstyle, PVE or PVP?

All these grandiose suggestions that people make, and 99% of them are to benefit themselves.

[/quote']

First off, I'm a bandit, so nothing about this would really affect the way I play. I'll still just kill anyone I come across in as spectacular a fashion as I can muster. I also don't think any playstyle could object to this feature except for some one who specifically enjoys saying "yea I'm friendly, let's group up" and then shooting some one in the back. Which is... what did you call it... a minority.

I just think it would be really cool to have survivors doing more interesting things, like making trade hubs, ferrying players around the map, etc. Not only because it fleshes out the game world, but because then I get to ambush those vehicles, pillage those cities, and fight against more organized groups.

I also have no idea how a friend list, black list, and group list (for tags) dumbs down the game. You can't defend the current implementation of 200k players all having the same player skin and being virtually indistinguishable. Frankly, I think you're a bitch, and you're making bandits look bad. I will vehemently defend the bandit playstyle until you try and use bullshit rationales to hide from player retribution in-game.

---

I shoot people' date=' ALL the time, because they're a threat to me, but I'm not a coast camping dick that rushes around and gets his jollies from racking up killstreaks like some 12 year old with a headset an Xbox Live. If you're the kind of person that just up and says "hey, let's go kill people in Elektro" then you're an asshole, and anyone that agrees that mindless, pointless PvP is somehow "realistic" needs some damn sunlight.

[/quote']

The realism argument has no place here -- until a videogame can simulate real life perfectly, it will always rely on somewhat artificial mechanisms to create the game.

What you call "mindless" PvP is extremely fun for many people. Trying to stay hidden while stalking your mark, scouting to determine your enemy's strength, figuring out where they're going and where best to strike, stealthily avoiding/dispatching zombies while keeping your enemies unaware, or even using them for a diversion. PvP is *far* more dynamic in a sandbox game, and frankly you don't have the right to tell people they should actually be killing zombies and helping players instead. That's not what a sandbox is.

Secondly' date=' I'm not really talking much about the game itself, but I'm CERTAINLY talking about the community and forums. We live in a world where it's somehow considered socially acceptable to not know how to act in public, to be stupid and ignorant, and to be a bigoted, socially inept introvert because hey, we're on the internet! [/quote']

Well I think videogame forums are rather tame compared to arguments about "real" issues like politics, religion, social issues, etc. But yes they get heated because just like real issues, people are invested here. They've spent a lot of time here, and they have a stake in the future of this game (more fun).

PvE gets hindered a lot' date=' as in every time a patch comes out and there are still no zombies in the woods to eat snipers.

[/quote']

While I would definitely want roaming hordes of zombies, every recent change has been made to appease PvE players' mindless drivel.

Most snipers aren't in the woods, they're on buildings; often buildings that are too complex for zombie pathing to climb.

You complained about makarov spawn rushers, they took away the makarov.

You complained that zombies were too easy and that was creating "mindless PvP" as opposed to teamwork amongst randoms, so they've ratcheted up the zombies.

You complained about sniping so they drastically lowered the CZ550 spawns.

You said if players had to specialize they might group up, so they made hatchets take up massive inventory + primary wep slot when active; probably one of many "specialized" items they had planned (It's true my group does have an axe murderer on hand now).

None of this, of course, has actually changed the PvP dynamics in the game. Your complaints are WASTING ROCKET'S TIME, when he could be implementing features that truly do flesh out the world and create a variety of playstyles.

[iSpaceman 0]

Teamwork is pretty few and far in between, but there are definitely friendly people out there.

Bad time:

Was in Elektro fire station just eating some pasta and reloading all my guns when 3 guys opened up on me with AK's. They managed to wound me, and I crawled into a corner, but then the zombies started coming to investigate. I ran out of ammo, and as soon as they noticed this they cleaned up the zombies, and me.

Good time:

This happened just today actually. Was searching a farm in Prigorodky when I hear crawling. A guy called Ishalus comes around the corner and greets me, saying he has no weapon and that he needs to look for one (due to the new patch my Direct Comm. wasn't working so I couldn't get through to him). We ended up pairing up and walking to Vysota, where we bumped into another silent player (I assumed his DC was broken too), and we geared him up with a crossbow and some food and we all went off together!

We made it to Nadezhdino, but we alerted some zeds while in the barn, and they started to swarm. The initial guy I paired up with glitched and broke his leg, so the other guy and me tried to defend him. Eventually we both went dry, and I motioned with my head for him to run, and Ishalus confirmed saying he should run since he still had food and drink. I stayed to fight and defend Ishalus with my hatchet, but we both succumbed eventually.

tl;dr There are good people out there, you just have to be patient.

[Devokan 0]

The only players i initiate on myself are guys running around with a hatched. got bad expierience with those.

[vanilladragon 1]

people should play how they want, its a sandbox.

the problem is its impossible to play as a survivor. you take on all the risks and none of the rewards that bandits get. coupled with the fact there is zero 'end game' content wide spread player killing becomes inevitable.

also the realism argument is beyond fucking stupid. we're playing a video game, stop trying to use realism as an excuse to continually gimp those who want to play as survivors. someone claimed using global chat was akin to using telepathy and thus should be removed? you need your fucking head checked mate. this is by far the stupidest thing i have read on this forum, which is quite an achievement given how stupid this community is generally. ignoring how unrealistic a zombie apocalypse is in the first place... is guns and ammo randomly spawning realistic? should you have to watch your character sleep for 6 hours or succumb to exhaustion? should you carry a car motor in your back pack?

i hardly ever generalise but i will right now: anyone who uses the realism argument is stone cold retard, unless you advocate watching your character sleep for 6 hours to avoid exhaustion.

this game as it is now pigeon-holes you into the bandit role, i think that will change as more content is developed. at least i pray it does

[iSpaceman 0]

also the realism argument is beyond fucking stupid. we're playing a video game' date=' stop trying to use realism as an excuse to continually gimp those who want to play as survivors. ..... ignoring how unrealistic a zombie apocalypse is in the first place... is guns and ammo randomly spawning realistic? should you have to watch your character sleep for 6 hours or succumb to exhaustion? should you carry a car motor in your back pack?[/quote']

Whilst I think the realism argument does apply to a mod and game that prides itself on ultra realism, I totally see where you're coming from. There's no point arguing about social contract theory in a mod. The fact is, in a GAME, some people just like killing others, others don't. Real life would be different, but thats academic.

[Blasty 0]

I love how you all assume real life would be so different. I think people overestimate the human race.

[zantiago 119]

Hey Zantiago - that's a great story. What I love about this game is the incredible range of narratives it throws up.

I agree. With both statements.

Glad you liked it mates.

Someone have to show these newcomers that not everyone here is so narrowminded they are ignoring the co-operative aspect of this game.

When im not with my crew romaing the woods, or plundering towns at night, i usually go to the coast, looking for people i might be able to help, or if i gear gunshots from a nearby town when im in the woods.

I usually get into get a closer look, knowing im nearly invisible.

Sometimes i even draw out my DMR to help them fend of zombies if i see they are in trouble and unable to get out of it with their life in good shape.

So far i haven't gotten shot for it, so i'll continue doing it.

Just wish more server's had side channel activated so i could actually ask if they needed help, most don't seem to respond so im setback abit by that, but hey, nothing i can do about it now.

I live in the grey, same as with Courier, and we pretty much share the same vision on what we have to do, be that surviving or giving up.

At some point we will stop careing and seek dangers, simply to get that lonely feeling out of our head.

-z

[vanilladragon 1]

I love how you all assume real life would be so different. I think people overestimate the human race.

why do you assume it wouldnt be? I wouldnt like to meet the people who think human beings would devolve into mindless killbots if the zombie apocalypse ever occurred. you strike me as a potential psychopath just itching for a release.

human beings are so powerful because we co-operate under stressful situations. this is not an opinion, its an observed fact. just open a history book.

i have no doubt that some people would kill another if it meant their survival, but no where near the levels which are happening in the game right now. its a blood bath. do you honestly believe a true to life zomapoc would be like this? everyone shooting everyone on sight?

or are we only using the realism argument when it suits us?

[zantiago 119]

GAMES cater to the straight up dick in everyone.

Its not DayZ that makes them nasty' date=' its because they get jollies from being a dick, and they are hidden behind a screen and miles of internet cable.

It happens in every game,

CoD= spawn trapping

BF2= tracer darting your own tanks

WoW = people refusing to heal tanks

etc, etc ,etc etc,

[/quote']

Yet, in those other games, death means virtually nothing. All of them is just a quick respawn/corpserun and you're exactly back to where you started. Also, those games have clans/guilds that can manage the general social aspect of how the game is run. Clans can kick and ban them from servers, and decent players realize that they don't act like that or they will get kicked.

DayZ doesn't have this. It's easy to strike out on your own, and most clans/groups APPLAUD the notion of getting the most kills. This is a relic from other FPS games, where kills reign supreme, and here in DayZ that mentality needs to die before we can move on to the actual "survival" aspect. So yes, games make dicks, but DayZ practically caters to them by doing nothing but beefing them up. Ask yourself: If I'm wrong, why are there NVGs in this game? Why are there scoped rifles?

Because some people actually like the night part of the game, i infact love running arround blind at night, using flares, chemlights to light my path, as im using NVG's now, which i didn't kill for, i won't have to, but i still like the night time.

And why are there sniper rifles with scopes?

Because it allows it, as it would be just as valid as having it in real life.

The further you are away from danger, the better.

Still beeing able to defend the betterman from 700meters out still gives a feeling of comfort, as you are still helping someone.

You make some valid points, now and again, but those two last questions there are truly not among them.

-Z

[gizm0 96]

A friends list? Seems like a ton of work for something that could be solved by using voice chat and telling eachother where you are' date=' though I do agree the skin selection could use some work [/quote']

The point would be to create a social fabric spanning friends of friends of friends. Believe it or not, not all 200k players are in a single VOIP server.

And tags for people you really trust makes complete sense, it's absurd that you can't tell a stranger apart from your best friend in-game. Again, not every player is in the same VOIP, and that is a HUGE disincentive to grouping/socializing when the only way to know whether player model #10 is your best friend or a complete stranger is to check over external VOIP or give away your position in-game.

And adding a color value to names in the userlist isn't really that much work for the huge impact it would have on the game.

One little problem with this' date=' most bandits don't use VOIP nor chat in the first place, so it would be irrelevant.[/quote']

That doesn't matter. You still have plenty of bandits playing friendly when it suits them (ie. backstabbing their group, hiding their true colors when a superior force of friendlies shows up, whatever). Of course it would take a while to develop a true reputation as a backstabber, but it would happen, purely via word of mouth and trust networks. You could actually restrict access to trade cities and the like based on social branding. You could corner an individual and give him the option to identify himself (find out if he's a friendly/bandit) or die. That is true player justice.

By that 'rationale'' date=' your kills would need to be witnessed to gain word of mouth. Happening across a random body in the middle of nowhere would tell you nothing. Again, too many flawed ways of thinking to implement a wholly useless system to make a few people feel better about their flawed playstyle.

[/quote']

Of course it's not completely realistic. But it's no less realistic than your bullshit pretense of having each life be completely separate. You're still you after you respawn, whether you're a bandit or survivor. Reputation can't be implemented without an artificial system in this case because there are no visual cues with which to identify players. Most people are differentiable, and reputation can spread on the smallest of visual cues, (blue eyes with a scar across his face, for example, would mark you specifically as a bandit for life if you let one kill get away and he spreads the word).

Obviously my brief outline isn't a complete system -- what if one friend brands you a bandit while another marks you friendly? This is just a simple description showing how an in-game social network of trust would completely change the game.

---

who's playstyle is flawed? But if we are gonna sit behind the realism factor' date=' lets have it so if you die every item associated with you that isn't on a player gets removed

[/quote']

Precisely -- I can't stand when people use the realism argument, because it's always invoked inconsistently, and only to defend their own view.

As for your idea, there is no way for the game to determine which items are "connected" to you -- your new character will still have the same friends who can gear you up on respawn.

The main issue here still remains that a small minority of overly verbal players want the game to be molded to their playstyle. I have not once mentioned anything to be added or subtracted to better suit my playstyle, why is it that PVE carebears have the right to dumb down the game for everyone else? Why do we need to add color tags and friend lists, bandit databases, etc? Has rocket not said time and time again that he will not hinder any specific playstyle, PVE or PVP?

All these grandiose suggestions that people make, and 99% of them are to benefit themselves.

Rocket said that if we want to curve PVP and banditry we are gonna have to do it ourselfs, all i'm asking for is tools so any thing we do isn't completely useless and just a waste of time. Also I've pretty much given up on Dayz because its just a slow deathmatch right with zombies in the mix. And thats not what I though a zombie survivial mod would focus on. also curretnly PVP is not only more fleshed out in dayz but its also more rewarding than any of the PVE content.