Why do peoples actions need to dictate their appearance?

[Vicco 123]

Dude, you seriously need to take a chill pill. I never said I "didn't want a humanity system."

 

 

Yes, that was mistake on my part, and I apologize for that.

I'll simply ignore your insults.

To clarify, under the current game rules, killing a bandit is not "murder."  Simple fact.

I don't camp and long-range snipe, and normally only carry a Winchester or Lee.

Just don't want to talk to those the game has marked as bandits under the current rules.

Only kill them, whether in chance encounter, or by stalking.

That's my choice to make.

 

In case you didn't know, the current humanity system encourages killing bandits by those on the "hero" path, by rewarding 200 humanity for killing a bandit with negative humanity.  You'd have to leave the game rules to call bandit killing "murder."  I play by the rules. 

 

I prefer the current bandit skin mechanic, but would like it improved to recognize "who shot first."  Probably not possible.

However marking "bad guys" works out, with no clear identification I'll just KOS.

If the game comes up with something else that works as well as the bandit skin, fine.  But if it requires me to get too close to murderers, or "trust" them for the instant it take me to pick up "subtle" cues, and that costs me even one life, then KOS it will be.

 

I haven't seen one suggestion yet to replace the bandit skin that will prevent me from being KOS.  But it's interesting to see sincere attempts to devise one. 

I've tried to only state my preferences and views, and again apologize for anything you've found insulting or ad hominem.  I hold no ill will toward you.

And I have no serious qualms about being a murderer in a game that gives murderers an advantage.  If I don't like it, I'll just take my ball and go home to a different game. 

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Yes, that was mistake on my part, and I apologize for that.

I'll simply ignore your insults.

To clarify, under the current game rules, killing a bandit is not "murder."  Simple fact.

I don't camp and long-range snipe, and normally only carry a Winchester or Lee.

Just don't want to talk to those the game has marked as bandits under the current rules.

Only kill them, whether in chance encounter, or by stalking.

That's my choice to make.

 

In case you didn't know, the current humanity system encourages killing bandits by those on the "hero" path, by rewarding 200 humanity for killing a bandit with negative humanity.  You'd have to leave the game rules to call bandit killing "murder."  I play by the rules. 

 

I prefer the current bandit skin mechanic, but would like it improved to recognize "who shot first."  Probably not possible.

However marking "bad guys" works out, with no clear identification I'll just KOS.

If the game comes up with something else that works as well as the bandit skin, fine.  But if it requires me to get too close to murderers, or "trust" them for the instant it take me to pick up "subtle" cues, and that costs me even one life, then KOS it will be.

 

I haven't seen one suggestion yet to replace the bandit skin that will prevent me from being KOS.  But it's interesting to see sincere attempts to devise one. 

I've tried to only state my preferences and views, and again apologize for anything you've found insulting or ad hominem.  I hold no ill will toward you.

And I have no serious qualms about being a murderer in a game that gives murderers an advantage.  If I don't like it, I'll just take my ball and go home to a different game. 

 

I get that it's not "murder" in terms of gameplay value, and I'm not saying it should be. If you want to hunt bandits, that's fine. I think the humanity system is actually the best solution to monitoring a very, very intricate problem. And I don't think these things will solve KoS issues outright. I think the approach must be multi-faceted to actually alter the gameplay in such a way that feels more authentic. I think players need more incentives to cooperate. Period. You simply can't carry a car engine in a backpack, for example. Totally impossible - and inauthentic. You can't construct a large wall all on your lonesome - at least not very quickly. You as an individual may not even have the skill necessary to repair a vehicle in a certain condition, for example. I know I do not.

 

These are all factors that should be taken into consideration when we talk about "Kill on Sight."

 

I think that KoS is fundamentally related to the extremely low gameplay value of human life in DayZ. There's simply nothing that anyone can really help you do, except blood bag and a few other things. The game needs to become more group oriented, and less lone Wolf oriented; we need bigger goals. We need more to do. More to explore. More danger to avoid. You'll recall that towards the end of The Sea Wolf, Hump and Maud toiled for two weeks, just building a hut - even longer repairing the Ghost. (and believe me, repairing a boat is no easy task. I'm working on one currently.) This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Tasks that literally require more than one person to accomplish economically. Human limitation is what necessitates teamwork. If teamwork is more highly valued, then KoS would decrease (and don't get me wrong. It's never going away). Wouldn't it make more sense to recruit a friendly person to help erect a wall, or carry an engine to a vehicle you want to repair, than to just shoot him out of paranoia? Just the act of accomplishing goals together is what bonds us as human beings.

Edited July 27, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[wild_man 4442]

CoD is that ----> way....

  :D I am appreciate you make try to help me find this shit but is OK, I know 100% where is CoD :P

 

is #2 game for pvP ;)

I play this shit too much and bring same passion for make kills to elektro  :ph34r:

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

Fraggle knows I was being ridiculous with that mspaint suggestion.  

But I like it.

[Wayze 549]

But I like it.

So I was right. :P

 

Anyway, we don't need a humanity system. It is working without, so why bother to make one? You don't want to tell me the bandit/hero system right now is a humanity system, do you? It is... I don't know it is just stupid but anyway, the game is good as it is. If you want to play a game where everyone is friendly you can play Battlefield or Minecraft. Why does everyone want to have a world filled with flowers and friendship? This game is about survival and please don't tell me it is impossible to find someone to play with. If you are careful, there is still a risk, you can team up with someone. The risk is something that will never dissappear, regardless how many stupid humanity systems you implement. For DayZ they are just senseless. And this risk is what makes DayZ so unique.

 

So, you are talking about how to implement a freaking humanity system. But I ask you right now, for what do we need such a humanity system?

[Jamz 253]

 

So, you are talking about how to implement a freaking humanity system. But I ask you right now, for what do we need such a humanity system?

 

There needs to be some danger to the bandit for taking the bandit path. Whether it's a humanity system or something else, there needs to be some comeback to mindless slaughter because it's so easy in the mod. In ancient times murderers were caught and killed or banished by townspeople working together to save themselves. If the townspeople and the murderers were all identical it would be impossible to stop the murderer and all non murderers would die or become murderers. In the mod you would then have an identipvp shooter, like all the rest and it would become very dull, with no risk.

It's simple really, I don't see why people can't understand this.

 

FYI I don't think skins are really the way forward, or even a humanity system, but there should be something.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

So I was right. :P

 

Anyway, we don't need a humanity system. It is working without, so why bother to make one? You don't want to tell me the bandit/hero system right now is a humanity system, do you? It is... I don't know it is just stupid but anyway, the game is good as it is. If you want to play a game where everyone is friendly you can play Battlefield or Minecraft. Why does everyone want to have a world filled with flowers and friendship? This game is about survival and please don't tell me it is impossible to find someone to play with. If you are careful, there is still a risk, you can team up with someone. The risk is something that will never dissappear, regardless how many stupid humanity systems you implement. For DayZ they are just senseless. And this risk is what makes DayZ so unique.

 

So, you are talking about how to implement a freaking humanity system. But I ask you right now, for what do we need such a humanity system?

 

I actually like the idea. Just distinguishing between more and less violent players is pretty essential to giving players some kinds of basis to trust each other a little, team up and fight for survival. It is kind of impossible to find someone to play with. Besides, it isn't necessarily meant to mitigate conflict. Only to balance player interactions. The idea is to make teamwork more valuable in tangible ways.

 

Besides, cooperative gameplay rewards you with humanity. So even if you murder some people, cooperating with other players (building constructions, performing surgeries, and all that constructive, wholesome stuff we humans call survival) would add to your humanity as well. People's humanity balances itself. If they purely run around murdering, never being constructive, then they never gain any humanity. I think it makes sense to make a distinction between the two types of player, over time.

 

As Bertrand Russel once said; "The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."

 

I think we can all appreciate the significance of that now.

Edited July 27, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[dgeesio 1034]

they dont its purely game mechanics.

 

if im a bandit why would i wear a white snow camp suit yelling hi guys im a bandit ?

[Fraggle (DayZ) 15720]

they dont its purely game mechanics.

 

if im a bandit why would i wear a white snow camp suit yelling hi guys im a bandit ?

True, and that's why something more subtle is needed.  

 

As someone said earlier in the thread, if you walk into a pub you can fairly quickly get an idea of the people you'd happily chat with and the people that'll tell you to fuck off.  That's because knowingly or not people project themselves outwards even if they don't want to.  It's usually lot's of subtle things including body language that add up to give us a 1st impression of someone but obviously those are too subtle to add to a game so people try to think of a simpler way of mimicking that.

 

I guess you could say it's similar to the 3rd person camera view, in reality we can't look at the back of our own heads either but that view is there to replace the peripheral vision that is lacking in 1st person view.

 

Luckily the player skin thing is going (I never liked it) so whatever is used in the future (if anything) it'll probably be something to do with the character themselves.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Fraggle

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I think what we're actually dealing with here is making the distinction between constructive players and totally destructive players. If you exposed yourself to the elements constantly, went around murdering people for their stuff, ect. ect., all the while never bothering to get some form of shelter, or rest, you would look totally haggard. Clothes torn from combat, blood all over you from looting corpses - and consider the effect it would have on your general demeanor? You're first reaction to seeing people would be a scowl. Why would you even care about such a pathetic life-form? If your only goal is to kill other people, you would probably look upon them with disdain and impatience. These are the kinds of things that subconsciously signal our human brains of danger.

 

Of course, murder is sometimes contextually justified, and should therefore be redeemable. Cooperative play slightly negates the effects of murder on your humanity. Say you walk up on two guys. If two people are partners, they have must have some humanity, right? They have humanity towards each other at least, since they cooperate. Yeah, maybe they killed that guy you found a ways back, but maybe not. Because they're together, cooperating, one might logically assume that they are at least friendly with each other. But as you get closer, what if you could actually observe them washing blood off their hands? Suddenly it all adds up. Your human mind can comprehend that these men might be dangerous. These are the kind of emergent gameplay moments I would really like to see. This is where the richness of player interaction can be cultivated. You see an effect. You infer a cause. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to come to the conclusion.

 

Imagine if facial gestures of a player actually changed when that player looked at another person. These two men in the hypothetical - because they "trust" each other (a report built from doing cooperative tasks over time such as healing each other, building structures together, ect.), their faces would be neutral or even smiling when they see each other. This might lure you into a false sense of security. But If one of them looks at you and instantly begins to scowl (which would not be in his control unless he were deliberately putting on a poker face, which I think is a completely fair thing to do), as he and his partner remove blood from their clothing - the conclusion is obvious. That guy has generally low humanity. He is dangerous. He is up to something. That's your human intuition kicking in and whispering "this guys is a threat, do something!" You don't even need to speak to someone in that situation to conclude that they are dangerous. You might even be able to observe them washing blood off their hands through a sniper scope, Vicco (and yes, that is your choice. If you deduce them to be violent, then by all means, shoot them). lol

 

You just can't compare this situation to "wearing a snow suit." It's a completely false analogy.

Edited July 27, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[dilorenzovictor@gmail.com 36]

I think the purpose of it was to reduce people that would just KoS?  yeah?  Upping the TTK would probably help.  Right now its too easy to die or kill, some people pre empt being killed by killing first, when you die in 2 shots whats the option?  kill first or hide.  

 

Aside from that the current system isn't bad for what they wanted to accomplish.  If able, people will gladly kill bandits on sight, which in turn prevents some people from becoming bandits.  

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I think the purpose of it was to reduce people that would just KoS?  yeah?  Upping the TTK would probably help.  Right now its too easy to die or kill, some people pre empt being killed by killing first, when you die in 2 shots whats the option?  kill first or hide.  

 

Aside from that the current system isn't bad for what they wanted to accomplish.  If able, people will gladly kill bandits on sight, which in turn prevents some people from becoming bandits. 

 

Well honestly I don't see this as much of a priority issue for the mod. The mod is separate from the standalone, so I guess it's important to make the distinction.

[dgeesio 1034]

I think what we're actually dealing with here is making the distinction between constructive players and totally destructive players. If you exposed yourself to the elements constantly, went around murdering people for their stuff, ect. ect., all the while never bothering to get some form of shelter, or rest, you would look totally haggard. Clothes torn from combat, blood all over you from looting corpses - and consider the effect it would have on your general demeanor? You're first reaction to seeing people would be a scowl. Why would you even care about such a pathetic life-form? If your only goal is to kill other people, you would probably look upon them with disdain and impatience. These are the kinds of things that subconsciously signal our human brains of danger.

 

Of course, murder is sometimes contextually justified, and should therefore be redeemable. Cooperative play slightly negates the effects of murder on your humanity. Say you walk up on two guys. If two people are partners, they have must have some humanity, right? They have humanity towards each other at least, since they cooperate. Yeah, maybe they killed that guy you found a ways back, but maybe not. Because they're together, cooperating, one might logically assume that they are at least friendly with each other. But as you get closer, what if you could actually observe them washing blood off their hands? Suddenly it all adds up. Your human mind can comprehend that these men might be dangerous. These are the kind of emergent gameplay moments I would really like to see. This is where the richness of player interaction can be cultivated. You see an effect. You infer a cause. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to come to the conclusion.

 

Imagine if facial gestures of a player actually changed when that player looked at another person. These two men in the hypothetical - because they "trust" each other (a report built from doing cooperative tasks over time such as healing each other, building structures together, ect.), their faces would be neutral or even smiling when they see each other. This might lure you into a false sense of security. But If one of them looks at you and instantly begins to scowl (which would not be in his control unless he were deliberately putting on a poker face, which I think is a completely fair thing to do), as he and his partner remove blood from their clothing - the conclusion is obvious. That guy has generally low humanity. He is dangerous. He is up to something. That's your human intuition kicking in and whispering "this guys is a threat, do something!" You don't even need to speak to someone in that situation to conclude that they are dangerous. You might even be able to observe them washing blood off their hands through a sniper scope, Vicco (and yes, that is your choice. If you deduce them to be violent, then by all means, shoot them). lol

 

You just can't compare this situation to "wearing a snow suit." It's a completely false analogy.

 

 

you gone too deep and this is the very reason why things dont generally work like this in gaming. you trying to set rule parimetres to something that has no rules ! there in failing instantly !

 

if im a murder kos person what does it matter what  i wear ? it doesnt . its that simple. i wear what i wear cause i choose to. not cause i like to identify myself as a killer. no retarded person would do this so why its like this in game is only gme mechnics. also saying a person would be haggard dressed roughly blood on him if kos all time why ? why would he use your definition ? he wouldnt  !

 

each person would be different some would be sloppy messy blood on them they would be picked off by better bandits or a group of survivors maybe who know by his own stupidness that he is not to be trusted.

 

anyone with brains or a ounce of sense would kill take gear of whats needed maybe clean themselves of obvious evidence and maybe swop clothes. pull a jacket from a corpse or maybe even search for clothes in houses around area (there you go rocket new feature purpose for free ;)  ) say a old ward drobe in a house has a diffeent jacket trousers. this could be used if you being purseud aswell by others. they may think oh thats not the guy. could f swoppe appearance.

 

there are many routes which could be done and doesnt have to be complicated or everything animated.

 

aslong as bandits arnt made to standout for being bandits im all for whatever is produced other than a big sign saying hay im going to shoot you which isnt always the truth you could of been ambushed first but killed the bandits. yet your clothing suggests you are a bandit and not to be trusted. total falsehood which comes from poor game mechnics as said .

Edited July 27, 2013 by dgeesio

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

you gone too deep and this is the very reason why things dont generally work like this in gaming. you trying to set rule parimetres to something that has no rules ! there in failing instantly !

 

if im a murder kos person what does it matter what  i wear ? it doesnt . its that simple. i wear what i wear cause i choose to. not cause i like to identify myself as a killer. no retarded person would do this so why its like this in game is only gme mechnics. also saying a person would be haggard dressed roughly blood on him if kos all time why ? why would he use your definition ? he wouldnt  !

 

each person would be different some would be sloppy messy blood on them they would be picked off by better bandits or a group of survivors maybe who know by his own stupidness that he is not to be trusted.

 

anyone with brains or a ounce of sense would kill take gear of whats needed maybe clean themselves of obvious evidence and maybe swop clothes. pull a jacket from a corpse or maybe even search for clothes in houses around area (there you go rocket new feature purpose for free ;)  ) say a old ward drobe in a house has a diffeent jacket trousers. this could be used if you being purseud aswell by others. they may think oh thats not the guy. could f swoppe appearance.

 

there are many routes which could be done and doesnt have to be complicated or everything animated.

 

aslong as bandits arnt made to standout for being bandits im all for whatever is produced other than a big sign saying hay im going to shoot you which isnt always the truth you could of been ambushed first but killed the bandits. yet your clothing suggests you are a bandit and not to be trusted. total falsehood which comes from poor game mechnics as said .

 

Yeah, they would look haggard, if they didn't rest and get shelter to protect themselves from the elements. And obviously you can change your clothes. What I said was that looting a fresh corpse would get blood on you - that one time. I think that's a totally reasonable game mechanic. High humanity players would be able to get blood on themselves also, so it goes both ways, you know. It's actually just evidence based on a cause. I'm not saying that "having low humanity should automatically put blood on you." That would be quite stupid indeed. If you get to find new shirts, and you get blood on your shirt, couldn't you just change it? Or wash it? Either way, you can still cover up your tracks as a bandit. It just means that you have to think a little harder to do so. Plus, cooperative players who build structures and are able to rest and recuperate would just look better in general, bandits included. If you think trekking through woods for days on end has no effect on your appearance, then I highly suggest that you try going camping sometime. 

 

Besides, the way I described the humanity system is how it works right now. You can murder people and still look normal if you just grind certain "good deeds" to keep your humanity up. So I don't really see the point. All this stuff already exists. They've confirmed things like facial animations already. Humanity system works already. Plus, all of my suggestions only give your humanity away when a player gets pretty close to you. It's just not the same as wearing a big fat turban on your head going "look at me look at me, I'm a bandit!" You could still perform banditry - even more effectively than in the current mod. But other players should have some way of defending themselves from players like you. You just can't go around killing people left and right and expect zero consequences or evidence whatsoever. How do you think murderers in the real world get caught? Cause and effect based evidence. I think it gives everyone a balanced game experience. Both "bandits," neutrals, and high humanity players would all have to change their clothes from time to time. Say a "hero" player kills a bandit and loots his corpse. He would get bloody. What if the bandit has a friend, and bandit b sees the "hero" player with blood all over him. Doesn't this system give all players the advantage in certain ways? Doesn't it just kind of make sense? Bandit B would be able to infer what's going on in the situation based on evidence that he sees.

 

The point is that these game mechanics do not specifically favor one side of the humanity spectrum or the other. They're simply "rules." Our real world has rules - rules called "physics." If you axe murdered someone, you would get blood on you. Of course, you could choose to change your clothes and wash, since walking out into public with blood all over you isn't exactly a wise thing to do. I don't get why you think this gives any particular individual that much of an advantage or disadvantage.

Edited July 29, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[kander 80]

Very quick question to all posters here.

 

I'm assuming that the bandit skin is only really hated by 'bandits' themselves. People who roleplay survival / co-op either think it's a good thing or are indifferent to it.

 

My question is, if you play on your own and play to KoS, ideally (let's face it, much/most of the time) as a sniper, why do you care if you get the bandit skin? It's not like you are there to interact with other players apart from to kill them for sport. Sure it's unrealistic to start to look different as a result, but it's an unrealistic playing style in any case, right?

[Vicco 123]

Very quick question to all posters here.

 

I'm assuming that the bandit skin is only really hated by 'bandits' themselves. People who roleplay survival / co-op either think it's a good thing or are indifferent to it.

 

My question is, if you play on your own and play to KoS, ideally (let's face it, much/most of the time) as a sniper, why do you care if you get the bandit skin? It's not like you are there to interact with other players apart from to kill them for sport. Sure it's unrealistic to start to look different as a result, but it's an unrealistic playing style in any case, right?

 

I'll leave it to you to figure out people's motives.  My view is if I played as a bandit I wouldn't bitch about the skin.  I'd KOS, and while scavenging know I was a target, and make sure I'd KOS everybody.  You can easily gather gear as a bandit, and rack up your murder score.  It's the easiest way to play.

Since I take the hero path I enjoy occasional interaction, with no ill intent toward the other player.  I'll take the chance a survivor or hero doesn't shoot me in the back.  They can make their choice to become a bandit, or not.

 

All you have do is read this forum or watch YT vids to see how this works out.  Many players love to murder the unsuspecting, despite it earning them a bandit skin.  They just love it, and love to gloat about it.  Their numbers are legion in DayZ.  So you always take a chance with player interaction.

 

You're playing survivor/hero in a firehouse and a skinned bandit incautiously runs through the door.  You instantly identify him as a bandit and kill him if you can.

Running into a player while looting is common in DayZ.  Can't be avoided.

With what I've seen proposed for replacing the bandit skin with "subtle" cues. you'll have to hesitate before shooting, in order to recognize the cues.

He won't hesitate, because he's a bandit.  Why would he even hesitate for a minute, allowing you to pick up "cues?"

He has nothing to lose.  Only you do. You're dead.

 

That's why with no bandit skins, I'll be a pure KOS player.  You can take that to the bank.

[mitor 176]

Skins are needed. In a game that people kills because they don't have anything better to do skins are needed. We all know in real life:

 

-There would not be so many people that would kill people.

-There would be almost no people that would kill for fun.

-Most important: In a real apocalypse it is easier to track down people and to follow them and observe their actions, the world is bigger, they don't usually disappear(Or they log off) and there are more things that show how they are.(Not only kills.) 

[kander 80]

Skins are needed. In a game that people kills because they don't have anything better to do skins are needed. We all know in real life:

 

-There would not be so many people that would kill people.

-There would be almost no people that would kill for fun.

-Most important: In a real apocalypse it is easier to track down people and to follow them and observe their actions, the world is bigger, they don't usually disappear(Or they log off) and there are more things that show how they are.(Not only kills.) 

 

I completely agree. This doesn't necessarily need to be done through skins however (though this is the best way to deal with it at present). It is a case of trying to achieve a realistic balance of PvP and survival by discouraging folk shooting each other JUST because they are bored and it is fun. It doesn't have to be a moral deterrent; it could be, off the top of my head, any/all of these. These are PRACTICAL considerations for a REALISTIC outcome:

 

1.) Rarer military weapons: I only have a shotgun or Lee Enfield, I'm probably going to miss my target and expose myself.

2.) Rarer ammo: I won't shoot for the sake of it because I might need the ammo later

3.) Weapon jam: I might get only a couple of shots off and give away my position and then be a target myself

4.) Implement safety catches: I won't run round with an unsafe, loaded weapon for the sake of it because I might injure myself if I trip/fall and it goes off.

5.) Weapon degradation: I won't get in too many fights because my weapons might get damaged and become less reliable (maybe increased risk of likelihood of #3 occurring). Similarly, I won't just keep my gun out if it's raining because it might rust or similar.

6.) Misfiring: Do I want to trust this ancient shotgun I just found in a barn with questionable cartridges because it might explode in my face?

 

If all of these were implemented, it would do the same job, IMO, as the bandit / hero skin, by forcing people to make balanced cost-benefit analyses of their circumstances.

Edited July 29, 2013 by kander

[mitor 176]

I completely agree. This doesn't necessarily need to be done through skins however (though this is the best way to deal with it at present). It is a case of trying to achieve a realistic balance of PvP and survival by discouraging folk shooting each other JUST because they are bored and it is fun. It doesn't have to be a moral deterrent; it could be, off the top of my head, any/all of these. These are PRACTICAL considerations for a REALISTIC outcome:

 

1.) Rarer military weapons: I only have a shotgun or Lee Enfield, I'm probably going to miss my target and expose myself.

2.) Rarer ammo: I won't shoot for the sake of it because I might need the ammo later

3.) Weapon jam: I might get only a couple of shots off and give away my position and then be a target myself

4.) Implement safety catches: I won't run round with an unsafe, loaded weapon for the sake of it because I might injure myself if I trip/fall and it goes off.

5.) Weapon degradation: I won't get in too many fights because my weapons might get damaged and become less reliable (maybe increased risk of likelihood of #3 occurring). Similarly, I won't just keep my gun out if it's raining because it might rust or similar.

6.) Misfiring: Do I want to trust this ancient shotgun I just found in a barn with questionable cartridges because it might explode in my face?

 

If all of these were implemented, it would do the same job, IMO, as the bandit / hero skin, by forcing people to make balanced cost-benefit analyses of their circumstances.

 

And I would personally add to the list: 

 

7)Weapon noise. Make the zeds (As in the Standalone they are going to be persistent) in a big radius (Depending on the weapon, but certainly in a bigger radius than now) head towards the position of the noise, the nearest zombies heading faster and the ones that are far away simply walking towards the position. This would cause that all the zeds of the nearby location to besiege the players in near that position, and thus forcing them to spend even more ammo and taking the risk.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

You guys really don't think men kill for sport? Or for fun? Men hunt other men all the time. Men actually blow themselves up in order to kill other men. Do you really think that in the apocalypse there wouldn't be rampant murder? There are people who would do these things, when pushed to extremes.

Edited July 30, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Vicco 123]

You guys really don't think men kill for sport? Or for fun? Men hunt other men all the time. Men actually blow themselves up in order to kill other men. Do you really think that in the apocalypse there wouldn't be rampant murder? There are people who would do these things, when pushed to extremes.

 

Yabut...DayZ is a PC video game.  What's your point here?

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Yabut...DayZ is a PC video game.  What's your point here?

 

I'm simply pointing out that violence and cruelty are part of human nature. Real human beings play this game, so our human nature has an effect on the way we play it. That's all. If people are capable of murder in real life, naturally we are capable of murder in a fictional world. Especially when there isn't much else to do.

 

I think my real point is that even with the addition of proactive features, instances of shoot on sight, pvp, or theft probably won't decrease. However, hopefully it will change to a more group oriented affair.

Edited July 30, 2013 by SalamanderAnder