A light dissertation on Morality in DayZ

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

The term “morality” can be used either

• descriptively, to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
  
  1. some other group, such as a religion, or
     
  2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
     

  [*]normatively, to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

I've seen users on this forum beat the same dead fucking horse for over a year. Our suggestion section, and especially this section of the forum, are completely overrun with posts complaining about the Kill on Sight "problem." A common suggestion that I see on almost a daily basis is to make lone wolf players or bandits "go insane" and see hallucinations, lose control of their mouse and keyboard, or talk to themselves, or any other trash they can think of. I've EVEN seen players suggest that there should be moral ramifications for killing non-agro zombies.

These suggestions are all rooted in one rule: morality. Now, in our every day reality, we have to follow rules. We have to be "moral" citizens, because (most of us) live in a large, populated society with easy access to food and medicine. Our society imposes laws based on ethics. I think most people like to believe that there is some sort of "universal ethos" that governs us all. These people would contend that actions like killing, or stealing, are inherently wrong, regardless of the presence of society.

Well guess what moaners - there isn't. How can I say this so certainly? Because human beings are NOT automatically punished for doing amoral things. This alone proves that morality is a social construct. Consider a hypothetical situation where there are only two men. Only two. One day, one of the men kills the other. The reason is unimportant, because the fact remains that nobody, and nothing, can punish that killer for what he has done. "God" isn't going to strike him down with lightning. He isn't going to suddenly "lose his mind" and start talking to himself and running around uncontrollably. In fact, there's a good chance that he may not even feel bad about what he did.

Now consider the same situation, but instead of two men, there are three. Suddenly, one can't just kill another (even if he wants to), because the third party will witness his actions - and consequences may ensue.

Therefore, morality is the equivalent of human beings avoiding the consequences of actions that other humans would not like.

And this is where DayZ comes into the picture. DayZ aims to do pretty much one thing, and that is to place us in a harsh environment that is not governed by the same laws and ethics that we live by in the real world.

Now lets consider those definitions I posted.

The first is indicative of the little pussies who get killed a lot and whine about it. They play according to descriptive moral codes that do not actually exist and are not enforced by the game, yet they want everyone else to do the same, so they continually propagate their idiotic ideas on the forum.

"Normative" morality is truly the ONLY morality that can exist in DayZ.

"a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

The apocalypse is the specified condition. We are the rational persons. Therefore, we put forward a very simple code of conduct: neutralize any threat to our own existence. This is the only moral action we can take, since any rational being would do the exact same thing. When we encounter another player in DayZ, a very simple piece of arithmetic takes place. Only a few things can actually happen.

1: he kills me for my stuff. And he lives. Pretty problematic for my character.

2: I kill him for his stuff. And I live. Problematic for his character.

3: We team up and shit rainbows together.

According to the NOOBS, 3 is the only moral option. HOWEVER, it's a little problematic, since it only works if both players are observing the same moral code. The one who disobeys morality first is instantly the winner, since that person gets to keep all the loot.

Players who want "KoS" to be punished by in-game mechanics are simply asking the for impossible - for a computer program to determine the difference between right and wrong. It simply can't be done. Only a real human being could successfully analyze the context of a situation, and even then it's pretty ambiguous.

I know what some of you might be thinking right about now. "This guy just wants to watch the world burn, ect, ect." JUST to clarify - I do think teamwork should have incentives. I just don't think that doling out punishment to particular players or play styles is the right way to go. Remember people, this is the apocalypse we're trying to simulate. Real human conflict is the only thing that makes the game as compelling as it is.

Edited July 8, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[wild_man 4442]

:D you forget option 4 I KILL you for pure fun

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

:D you forget option 4 I KILL you for pure fun

I would contend that that's still included under option 1. The reason you kill me is relatively unimportant, really. The whole point of the game is to avoid death.

[wild_man 4442]

I would contend that that's still included under option 1. The reason you kill me is relatively unimportant, really. The whole point of the game is to avoid death.

ok. maybe this. :thumbsup:

but dayz is a game, why so much thinking about good and bad, right and rong? :huh:

If every player has fun times then the game is good and players always win. :thumbsup:

If some players have fun times sometimes and hate it sometimes then the game is stilln great and players win. :thumbsup:

If some players get mad and feel a lot of rage when they play dayz then the game is still great and those players should maybe try something less stressful imho. ;)

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

ok. maybe this. :thumbsup:

but dayz is a game, why so much thinking about good and bad, right and rong? :huh:

If every player has fun times then the game is good and players always win. :thumbsup:

If some players have fun times sometimes and hate it sometimes then the game is stilln great and players win. :thumbsup:

If some players get mad and feel a lot of rage when they play dayz then the game is still great and those players should maybe try something less stressful imho. ;)

I think the issue is that a lot of players are not getting the experience that they want. Instead of killing zombies and roleplaying as survivors of an apocalypse, they find themselves being engaged in pointless gunfights by assholes like you (no offense) who just kill other players for fun. They consider that to be "wrong" and complain about it. What they don't realize is that it's the bad guys who make the game interesting. If I didn't have to defend myself from other players, I'd just sneak around the zombies, gather all the loot I wanted, and then I'd be bored. It's the stress of wondering "What are his intentions?" that makes the game so thrilling. I love the fact that getting into a fight with another player literally makes my hands all sweaty and shaky from adrenaline. No other game has ever done that to me.

[wild_man 4442]

they find themselves being engaged in pointless gunfights by assholes like you (no offense)

lol, I don't take offense ever :D

my dad taught me not to worry wut prople who don't know me think about me, they are probably not very nice if they think bad things about people they never met.

If these players don't get the experience they want then maybe the game is wrong for them, or they are wrong for the game. If you make a game with guns there will always be assholes, CoD kids/ bastards/douches etc like me who just love to PvP :P

[TheDesigner 1197]

Ignore KoS, I'm almost certain he's a troll.

Anyways, there was a big discussion on human morales already and even though I argued humans do not enjoy killing, no one will truly no until an apocalypse ever happens. Greed is usually the dominant factor in most crimes, but that's only because society has built up certain items as important and whoever has more is doing better than someone who has less (like a good car vs. a bad car or a lot of money vs. no money).

In a zombie apocalypse food and ammo would be the most important thing in DayZ to own, while your life would be the most important thing to protect. In reality though, a majority of people in DayZ do not kill for food or ammo. They kill out of paranoia because of what you proclaim.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, killing for items, because it does. I'm just saying, most people do kill in DayZ out of either paranoia or simply because they're bored. It's not like this is a new issue. Ever since I joined there have been threads hating on bandits and KoS. Most people don't want gameplay mechanics to limit someone's play style but lets be honest. Most PvP that happens in DayZ is just to PvP.

[_Anubis_ (DayZ) 139]

"These people would contend that actions like killing, or stealing, are inherently wrong, regardless of the presence of society."

Yep. That's the whole point of what is called having a conscience or moral principles and what makes the difference between someone who 'does not steal because he is afraid to end up in jail' and someone who 'does not steal because he believes it is the right thing do to'.

_Anubis_

Edited July 8, 2013 by _Anubis_

[TheDesigner 1197]

"These people would contend that actions like killing, or stealing, are inherently wrong, regardless of the presence of society."

Yep. That's the whole point of what is called having a conscience or moral principles and what makes the difference between someone who 'does not steal because he is afraid to end up in jail' and someone who 'does not steal because he believes it is the right thing do to'.

_Anubis_

I concur.

Especially since DayZ obviously takes place a few weeks or months after the initial outbreak, I'd even dare to say days due to soldier bodies and heli crashes. Societies and personal morales would not break down immediately. You'd always have a sense of danger when around a stranger, but it would not cause 90% of the population to start death matching eachother. I'd wager that people would try and establish groups more than camp big cities for unlucky survivors. Safety in numbers.

[wild_man 4442]

I concur.

but it would not cause 90% of the population to start death matching eachother.

I think you have too much faith in humans.

When the structures for life like police, electric and everything is gone then there will be very strange situation.

Human is basically an animal who get very clever in very quick time. We make the world how we like and usually control nature. Nature of the world and nature of humans.

I watched a program with science about human brains. The ones who are success in life and business are the ones who don't give fucks about anyone except if they are relation of genes. With no system for decide who is right or wrong then the strong and bad guys will dominate very quik, and they will have the guns and they will deathmatch for control of resources for sure 100%

[TheDesigner 1197]

I think you have too much faith in humans.

When the structures for life like police, electric and everything is gone then there will be very strange situation.

Human is basically an animal who get very clever in very quick time. We make the world how we like and usually control nature. Nature of the world and nature of humans.

I watched a program with science about human brains. The ones who are success in life and business are the ones who don't give fucks about anyone except if they are relation of genes. With no system for decide who is right or wrong then the strong and bad guys will dominate very quik, and they will have the guns and they will deathmatch for control of resources for sure 100%

I saw that show too. Which is also said that these successful business mean were psychopaths in one way or another. They are also not the norm when it comes to society. Killing a person in a game and in real life a two very different things.

As I said, it's hard to predict what humanity would do. Take New Orleans as an example.

It got pretty chaotic once people started looting and such.

But then you look at Oklahoma and after a massive tornado people help eachother, share food, and offer comfort.

I believe humanity has evolved to a point where we no longer rely on our primal instincts and would be able to recognize that working together would create greater outcomes than just mowing down every person you saw.

But lets be honest here, most of the people who play this game don't have fully developed brains. Which isn't abnormal. Hell, even I don't have it. But with a maturing mind comes a greater conscience. Sure, throwing snowballs at cars when I was a kid was funny, but now I realize that that was an ass move and dangerous.

And if the bad guys are so strong, how has the world become so developed? Comparing the world today to the late 19th century/early 20th century, society as a whole is both more accepting of different views/beliefs and less discriminating as a whole. If humanity is so evil, why do we seek to make our selfs and the society we live in a better place for all?

Edited July 8, 2013 by TheDesigner

[wild_man 4442]

I saw that show too. Which is also said that these successful business mean were psychopaths in one way or another. They are also not the norm when it comes to society. Killing a person in a game and in real life a two very different things.

As I said, it's hard to predict what humanity would do. Take New Orleans as an example.

It got pretty chaotic once people started looting and such.

But then you look at Oklahoma and after a massive tornado people help eachother, share food, and offer comfort.

is true about psychopaths, and they are not so common, but in hard times these guys definitely will get power and the will take the best girls and soon the genetics of the psychopath will increase.

But this is not my point.

My point is that everybody will be very scared. like paranoiac. The rules we say now don't mean shit. It is back to natures rules, and nature is definitely a great big deathmatch if you look at it. if not like elektro and shoot for lulz but it is very hard competition for all animals like humans or even the ants.

I use spellcheck for no offend :thumbsup:

[TheDesigner 1197]

is true about psychopaths, and they are not so common, but in hard times these guys definitely will get power and the will take the best girls and soon the genetics of the psychopath will increase.

But this is not my point.

My point is that everybody will be very scared. like paranoiac. The rules we say now don't mean shit. It is back to natures rules, and nature is definitely a great big deathmatch if you look at it. if not like elektro and shoot for lulz but it is very hard competition for all animals like humans or even the ants.

I use spellcheck for no offend :thumbsup:

Ants and humans are two very different creatures. We've built skyscrapers, cities, and even nations. You can not compare humans to the normal of nature because we are not. The only true comparisons we have to what a apocalypse would be like are Hollywood Action movies. The truth is, bandits and there ways would be wiped out. Why go through the trouble of raiding people and getting shot at when the "good" guys have banded up and would offer proper human interactions. Most people who are killing for "fun" play as a lone wolf. You know how hard it would be to support yourself in an apocalypse by yourself? There's no respawning in real life. In DayZ you learn lessons by death, which in life would not be possible.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is people play DayZ as they do because of paranoia.

[wild_man 4442]

there is a myth that good guys get together in the bad times and make nice gangs. :rolleyes:

This is false.

the bad guys who are already in the gangs before apocalypse, have already guns and don't give zero fucks for man laws will straight away take good land and best womans for breed. The soldiers and polices too but they don't care anymore about orders or protect public, only protect there self.

Good guys who don't join other gangs will make new gangs for sure, but there is always a bad guy who is more stronger and is the real leader because he don't give fuck and kills the nice leader who try to talk about the problems and no fight.

Edited July 8, 2013 by KoS

[TheDesigner 1197]

there is a myth that good guys get together in the bad times and make nice gangs. :rolleyes:

This is false.

the bad guys who are already in the gangs before apocalypse, have already guns and don't give zero fucks for man laws will straight away take good land and best womans for breed. The soldiers and polices too but they don't care anymore about orders or protect public, only protect there self.

Good guys who don't join other gangs will make new gangs for sure, but there is always a bad guy who is more stronger and is the real leader because he don't give fuck and kills the nice leader who try to talk about the problems and no fight.

Pretty ridiculous argument. You just keep repeating that "bad" guys always beat "good" guys like some backwards Marvel comic. I tried to have a discussion but it seems pointless at this point.

[wild_man 4442]

Pretty ridiculous argument. You just keep repeating that "bad" guys always beat "good" guys like some backwards Marvel comic. I tried to have a discussion but it seems pointless at this point.

I think life is like a backwards comic like you say, people buy comics and watch movies to see a world they would like to living in but is not real because it is fantasy.

I just think that if you put 2 men the same strongness and skill for fight, 1 guy who is very good guy, no lies, no steals, no punching womans and make him fight with guy who is bastard who kills for fun, lies everyday and likes to punch the woman then I put my money on the 2nd. I don't say i like him more but I think because he have no rules he beat guy who has rules.

rules is like a weight on the man or one hand is tied up.

Because world is not a marvel comic. I enjoying the talk thanksyou :)

Edited July 8, 2013 by KoS

[Vicco 123]

3: We team up and shit rainbows together.

According to the NOOBS, 3 is the only moral option. HOWEVER, it's a little problematic, since it only works if both players are observing the same moral code. The one who disobeys morality first is instantly the winner, since that person gets to keep all the loot.

Players who want "KoS" to be punished by in-game mechanics are simply asking the for impossible - for a computer program to determine the difference between right and wrong. It simply can't be done. Only a real human being could successfully analyze the context of a situation, and even then it's pretty ambiguous.

Thoughtful post. I understand what you've said, and how this game can raise questions about human nature.

We'll see how that all plays out when a REAL zombie apocalypse happens. I expect all people would team up in clans for self-protection, and clans might or might not fight one another. Depends mostly on resources. Groceries won't spawn in Cherno. Guns won't spawn at Balota, etc.

But in a clan environment, bandits will be easily identified, and WILL be shot on sight. Lone-wolves MIGHT be tolerated. The game does this right already, with bandit skins doing the identification.

"The one who disobeys morality first is instantly the winner, since that person gets to keep all the loot."

That's purely your view. I don't see earning a bandit skin as "winning." And I don't care much about loot.

There are many players who won't kill. Their "moral" or "gameplay" call.

Respawning and recollecting survival gear is a HUGE part of what makes the game work. So is planning out stashes. Killing a bandit with absolutely no remorse is another. So a "hero" can satisfy some bloodlust too.

I do agree that there's no use crying about KOS, and that element helps make the game what it is.

They had just better adjust to it. At least stay on "official" servers where bandits are more readily identified.

To me the biggest crybabies are those who don't want murder identified with a bandit skin. They have all kinds of excuses for it, but what they want is to murder with no price extracted.

If they get their way and bandit skins are removed, I expect Dayz to become almost a pure deathmatch game.

That's how I'd play it if NOBODY is pegged as a bandit. EVERYBODY must be assumed to be a bandit.

Kill 'em all.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I concur.

Especially since DayZ obviously takes place a few weeks or months after the initial outbreak, I'd even dare to say days due to soldier bodies and heli crashes. Societies and personal morales would not break down immediately. You'd always have a sense of danger when around a stranger, but it would not cause 90% of the population to start death matching eachother. I'd wager that people would try and establish groups more than camp big cities for unlucky survivors. Safety in numbers.

I agree. I think in reality, I have no doubt that small groups would form. However, I also think that human beings, in reality, have an incredible capacity for violence. Those groups would be forced to interact with other groups, and human versus human combat would be inevitable. You'd have small skirmishes and maybe even wars going on between competing groups over resources. that's exactly why I said:

I do think teamwork should have incentives. I just don't think that doling out punishment to particular players or play styles is the right way to go. Remember people, this is the apocalypse we're trying to simulate. Real human conflict is the only thing that makes the game as compelling as it is.

Also, we can't forget that we are talking about a video game here. People can't feel physical pain or distress, they aren't under the real threat of death, meaning they are going to behave in ways that are not necessarily congruent with a real life situation. The best the game developers can do is give people more positive ways to interact. Basically, they need to make human life more valuable to us as a player.

Furthermore, I don't think the time-frame of the apocalypse in game is really significant to player behavior. I would say that for me, the apocalypse started more than a year ago, because that's how long I've been playing DayZ. Not only have I adapted my play-style to the environment, but I've actually changed as a person along the way. (in my real life as well as in the game, you see.) This game has a distinct Heart of Darkness effect. It changes us. We all (well maybe not all but most of us anyway) experience a story of our own. Sort of a personal journey.

I would argue that the real issue is not so much the time frame of the game, as it is central game play mechanics that need to be altered carefully to give us a reason to band together. In the current environment, that reason is pretty much absent. Sure, there is safety in numbers - to an extent. But I've been killed or attacked just as frequently in a group as alone. In fact, a lot of the time I do a lot better alone, since the false sense of security that having a teammate gives me often causes me to put my guard down - which leads to fatal mistakes. Plus, the more people you have with you, the more likely you are to be spotted by a bandit who wants to kill you.

Thoughtful post. I understand what you've said, and how this game can raise questions about human nature.

We'll see how that all plays out when a REAL zombie apocalypse happens. I expect all people would team up in clans for self-protection, and clans might or might not fight one another. Depends mostly on resources. Groceries won't spawn in Cherno. Guns won't spawn at Balota, etc.

But in a clan environment, bandits will be easily identified, and WILL be shot on sight. Lone-wolves MIGHT be tolerated. The game does this right already, with bandit skins doing the identification.

"The one who disobeys morality first is instantly the winner, since that person gets to keep all the loot."

That's purely your view. I don't see earning a bandit skin as "winning." And I don't care much about loot.

There are many players who won't kill. Their "moral" or "gameplay" call.

Respawning and recollecting survival gear is a HUGE part of what makes the game work. So is planning out stashes. Killing a bandit with absolutely no remorse is another. So a "hero" can satisfy some bloodlust too.

I do agree that there's no use crying about KOS, and that element helps make the game what it is.

They had just better adjust to it. At least stay on "official" servers where bandits are more readily identified.

To me the biggest crybabies are those who don't want murder identified with a bandit skin. They have all kinds of excuses for it, but what they want is to murder with no price extracted.

If they get their way and bandit skins are removed, I expect Dayz to become almost a pure deathmatch game.

That's how I'd play it if NOBODY is pegged as a bandit. EVERYBODY must be assumed to be a bandit.

Kill 'em all.

What I mean by "the player who shoots first wins" extends to more than just loot. By killing the other player you thus guarantee that he will not kill you. So you win, because you get to stay alive. Not to mention he might have some precious item which could save your life. I had teamed up with a guy recently who had a Lee Enfield with no bullets. As we scavenged, I could see him going for shells like a maniac. He wanted to get them before I could get over there. Fortunately he never found any Lee Enfield ammo, and I found a hatchet. Being a generally nice person and not wanting to betray his trust immediately, I went around killing zombies. Well needless to say, eventually one of the fuckers hits me, and I'm bleeding. No bandages in my inventory, none in sight. He saw me bleeding, and did absolutely nothing. I asked him repeatedly to bandage me. No reply. So, I axed him in the back. And guess what? The fucker had bandages to spare.

So did I make the "right" decision? Pretty grey. Why would he be willing to simply let me bleed out? Because why not? I obviously had no bandages, but he had seen me collect lots of other supplies, like food, water, tools, and a hatchet. If I would have died, he would gain plenty of valuable loot, and he would lose the looming possibility that I would murder him down the road.

Do I deserve a bandit skin for that action? I saved my own life from a man who was willing to let me bleed out and die. How is it fair that doing that would give me a turban and suddenly make all possibly friendly players want to murder me with extreme prejudice? Again, a computer program cannot accurately decide between right and wrong.

This is why bandit skins need to be a thing of the past. It simply isn't authentic to give a player no control over his physical appearance. What we need here is subtlety, not a big fucking neon sign on my head that says "THIS GUY IS EVIL SO KILL HIM FOR A HERO SKIN!"

Edited July 8, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Jamz 253]

This is why bandit skins need to be a thing of the past. It simply isn't authentic to give a player no control over his physical appearance. What we need here is subtlety, not a big fucking neon sign on my head that says "THIS GUY IS EVIL SO KILL HIM FOR A HERO SKIN!"

I agree with some of what you have said (my opinions on morals and whether DayZ reflects reality can be found on other threads), however The removal of bandit/Hero skins should have to be replaced by a better system - like also removing all other obtainable skins and having each survivor account spawn with a set of unique clothing which cannot be changed. Players can then be recognised up close and can gain in game reputations, it would simulate that no two people look the same in reality.

I don't understand why some people think that players with morals will not kill either.

[wild_man 4442]

I agree with some of what you have said (my opinions on morals and whether DayZ reflects reality can be found on other threads), however The removal of bandit/Hero skins should have to be replaced by a better system - like also removing all other obtainable skins and having each survivor account spawn with a set of unique clothing which cannot be changed. Players can then be recognised up close and can gain in game reputations, it would simulate that no two people look the same in reality.

I don't understand why some people think that players with morals will not kill either.

the idea to make every player have the same clothes for all the time but different from everyone elses clothes is ok idea, but I like to stay in elektro and a lot of my kills are because players not sure if I am the guy who shot him 15 minutes before. in real life if I killed 1 guy in elektro and I think he comes back for his body I will change clothes for sure 100%

[Jamz 253]

the idea to make every player have the same clothes for all the time but different from everyone elses clothes is ok idea, but I like to stay in elektro and a lot of my kills are because players not sure if I am the guy who shot him 15 minutes before. in real life if I killed 1 guy in elektro and I think he comes back for his body I will change clothes for sure 100%

This too is part of the problem, players need to be able to blend in and disguise themselves but be fundamentally identifiable somehow. It would probably be better then to keep findable skins in, so if players like you wanted to disguise yourself you could wear the skin, but other players could still potentially be cautious. Of course if you removed the skin you would be identifiable so wearing for instance, a ghillie suit, would be similar to choosing to wear a forced neutral skin, like the present survivor skin.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I did hear Rocket mention several times that in the standalone they are going to create facial gestures, and that your "default facial expression" would be influenced by your humanity level. So up close and personal you might see a guy with a scowl on his face, or maybe blood on his hands/clothes from looting a recently dead body. These are the types of subtleties that I'm personally really looking forward to.

[wild_man 4442]

This too is part of the problem, players need to be able to blend in and disguise themselves but be fundamentally identifiable somehow. It would probably be better then to keep findable skins in, so if players like you wanted to disguise yourself you could wear the skin, but other players could still potentially be cautious. Of course if you removed the skin you would be identifiable so wearing for instance, a ghillie suit, would be similar to choosing to wear a forced neutral skin, like the present survivor skin.

why not make hair and face unique for every players

am sure the dev could make say 10 hair colour, 100 hairstyle, 500 face, 5 race of peoples, 100 mustashes and beard, I don't understand the numbers to explain but there is enough to give all the players a unique face and hair. this is good because the player must be close to be sure it was me who killed him :P then when you buy game you get the same unique face from dayz forever

Or I get ginger afro and Chinese face which would be my kind of luck and everyone see me from fucking cherno >:(

Edited July 8, 2013 by KoS

[Vicco 123]

Sure, let players play Barbie doll with their character, as long as murderers get their head wrapped in a towel.

Only reason I don't kill EVERYBODY on sight is because if they're not in a bandit skin, I might take a humanity hit, get myself a bandit skin, and become a target myself.

But no bandit skins, and it's death match for me, because it's then an amoral game. No morality cues at all.

Why take a chance? You could be wearing Ralph Lauren or dressed like a rapper. To me you're a bandit, and KOS.

And I could live with that. An amoral game should be play amorally. That's how that works.

You know, I was googling about this, and a year ago people were complaining and quitting the game when Rocket removed the bandit skins, because - they claim - KOS became the norm, instead of a large measure of cooperation.

Supposedly Rocket removed the skins because some players thought they were "cool." I don't know why that bothered Rocket - or even if it's true - but he soon saw his mistake and put the skins back in.

A year ago they were talking about the "good old days of Dayz."

I think a lot of these perceptions about KOS being "new" are wrong readings of reality.

There's always been KOS'ers in DayZ, from the very beginning. Just watch some old vids.

What happened is the large number of "soft" players who played the game initially, dropped out one by one as they encountered KOS. Some probably became bandits by self-defense and didn't like that. That's the biggest flaw in the current humanity system, but is pretty easily overcome.

Others got wary about interacting with other players and lone wolfed, some just became KOS'ers themselves because they want to keep playing. So there's just more KOS'ers left now by the process of elimination. But many people still cooperate and team up.

No reason not to as long as bandits can be identified. Sure, it's a risk you take, but on "official" servers where humanity is kept real, lack of a bandit skin is a good enough reason not to KOS.

But some non-bandit players will team up with bandits. Be careful with those. That "nice guy survivor" helping you loot may be on TS telling his bandit pal exactly where to approach from so he has a clean shot at your back.

There is no way to remove that kind of tension from the game. Well, you could remove bandit skins and go pure death match. That would work.

Private servers are another story. Anything goes, and it's usually a much different game than vanilla "official"

servers.

[wild_man 4442]

.... So there's just more KOS'ers left now by the process of elimination...

Yes, like natural selection, surviving of the fittest :D