Most of the suggestions for reducing KoS

[HazZarD87 166]

KoS is not an issue. If you perceive it to be it's your problem. The discussion is pointless since rocket allready pointed out over a year ago that nothing will be done about the decisions players make. If people want to shoot anything that moves then that's how it's going to be. Time to nut up or shut up.

[TheLastEmp 295]

Zombo, that was an awfully long post of his... and I don't believe it was directed exclusively at you (narcissism?). And I don't believe you took the time to read it carefully and think about what he was saying... You are, in fact, both arguing about different aspects of the same topic.

 

I get what you're saying... KoS is "less risk" than trying to engage with a friendly. Fine. That's obviously true.

 

Ander was pointing out (to many people who posted about this, not just you) that there are an endless number of ways you can increase your chances of surviving a friendly (potentially friendly) encounter.  Obviously (as he stated) dying is part of the game.  You can't really avoid it. But you can do a whole hell of a lot to minimize the risk significantly. Yes, the person you're trying to engage with may have some buddies in teamspeak hiding in wait to ambush you... but that just adds to the risk, excitement, danger and fun of the game (at least for me).  Personally, I love getting ambushed.  When someone else is being the aggressor and I manage to take them out (or better yet, multiple "them") I end up with a fuckin massive rush of adrenalin.  And maybe an erection...

[tommes 331]

The thing is, many players, including me, explicitly want PvP. Fighting is fun. It's the shit. If there comes up a Hunger Games type of game with exploring and looting I'll be there. Preferably without annoying spastic Zeds. 

 

The problem DayZ is presented with is that it attracts two different kind of player types: the fighters and the co-opers.

The latter ones won't ever have much fun with the fighters and will complain and complain and complain. They need a different kind of game. I don't really see any other solution.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

 

-lots of weird hypothetical argumentation that doesn't matter-

 

You want to talk about increasing the literal value of someone's life?

 

No, that was the OP actually, maybe read my post again

 

 

Life has no value, gear has, so what if we make the value of life higher than the value of gear?

 

People would still either kill on sight, or just hide away if they dont have the needs to kill someone, just because the other person COULD potentially kill you, for whatever reason (and you all know there are douchebags out there who just want to damage others just for the heck of it)

 

 

Nobody is proposing a "team deathmatch" mode here. I'm addressing this observation, which you made. Life has no value.

 

You want to talk about increasing the value of life, then you have to address it at it's fundamental root cause. See, all the things you suggested have been implemented, or are already confirmed implementations in the standalone. I'm simply pointing out that what we have in DayZ is an environment that actually divides people. The only way to fix that is to implement more features that require player interaction.

 

Say it literally required a certain amount of manpower to build a structure, or took a certain level of knowledge to repair a vehicle. So as a lone wolf, certain goals and objectives might just be literally impossible. You can't start a power plant, for example, on your own. I don't see how adding cooperative gameplay objectives subtracts from lone wolf objectives? In fact, it furthers them. If players could group up and build bases, then lone-wolves or other groups could rob said bases. It's only natural for human beings to form groups, which is why right now the game is severely lacking. There's actually nothing to really do or accomplish as a team, so offing the guy you just met for his beans or for the lulz becomes a completely reasonable and acceptable standard. His life has no value. But if I was about to kill said guy and he said something like "I'm a really good mechanic, please don't kill me,"

 

Why, that might just alter the game entirely. A good mechanic? Maybe I've been needing a mechanic to help me fix up a car that I know about. Again, human labor, skill, and knowledge are what actually make people valuable in a tangible sense. If a person's death is literally a loss of a possible asset, then Kill on Sight would decrease, (note: not "go away.") because most players are eventually going to want to achieve higher goals. Also, I agree that ammunition should be much rarer, and that zombies should be harder, infection should be tougher, surviving in general should be more brutal; but again, those issues are being addressed in the standalone.

 

On top of all that, I think what we really need is a larger scale, more end-game oriented approach. I think the ability to travel between different maps would also aid in the whole Kill on Sight "normalcy," because players would actually have something to do, so simply death-matching won't always be the norm. There will always be players who want to kill for fun, but if you could get on DayZ and go "I think I'll travel to Northern Russia this time" - I mean talk about a long-term objective. Simply increasing the scope and scale of the game, and giving players more context, more to do, explore, and interact with; these sorts of things are what will really alter the game from "apocalypse deathmatch" to "apocalypse survival." But that kind of stuff could take a few years of development.

Edited August 15, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Dagwood 680]

Here's the bottom line:

Killing players rather than interacting with them is EASIER, and tends to give you a better chance at survival (in the mod today) period. Just like when the first modern warfare came out way back when it was easier to attain a higher KD ratio with the M16 than it was with any other weapon.

Telling people not to KOS is like trying to tell people not to use the OP COD4 M16: it's just not going to happen.

To continue the same analogy, what separates the players that will use whatever weapon gives them the best advantage, even if the weapon is perceived as being over powered or balance breaking, and the players that won't? I'd say its a desire for credibility and recognition from the rest of the player base, and a greater sense of accomplishment.

It feels great killing a guy in your traditional shooter that is using an "unfair" tactic (camping) or "OP" weapon (think noob-tube) when you are not doing the same. Some players don't care about using whatever tools the game gives them to optimize their effectiveness; whether its seen as OP or "for noobs".

So what do you do as one of the players that looks down upon this kind of play style?

You be the bigger person and outplay them regardless. You sneak up on that KOSer and hold him up. Or you survive his initial attack or ambush and you put him down. You adapt and you survive. And you get a sense of reward out of it. What you don't do is piss and moan to the developers to remove the noob tube or the ability to camp because it isn' going to happen.

While it is true that players that kill on sight are not experiencing dayz to its fullest, it is up to them to pursue a different playstyle. Just keep your chin up and let your own pride get you through this game. Look down on KOSers all that you want, but pity them, don't try to force them to play your way (even if you know your style is more fulfilling).

Months of stop KOS threads should have proven that it is never going to stop. So move on to the next step.

[thelonewarrior 886]

Yawn

It's not about the ability to survive, I survive fine, I like many others are just board of having to fight everyone the come across, which is because it is a dearhmatch now, one of the reasons I've stopped playing, it being far to easy to survive being another reason

Everyone knows it easier to kill people

You talk about not forcing cooperative play, just because they are adding elements of teamwork doesn't force anyone to team up or force them to stop killing on sight

I could say the current mod forces people to kill on sight, which would have more truth than you saying that adding cooperative elements somehow forces players to stop killing on sight

And tommes......... Really? Just really?

You only want pvp....without the annoying spastic zombies? Why are you even bothering to play? You must know that the SA will be nothing like that so this game will be nothing like you want it to be, it's people like you joining this game that are adding to KOS when you don't even want to be involved in the zombie apocalypse

Wasteland is for you, it has everything you need and no zombies

Saying that I've always wanted to use the line "don't shoot I'm a doctor"

[Bludy 324]

regulator is right..think about how you play once you have a friend with you or you find someone you know online and team up with :

 

you vs. the world

[Nst 1]

Some ppls are funny :) They not quite understand the topic...

 

1) we are talking about ways to improve gameplay in the FUTURE becouse we know PRESEN situation is not ideal and KoS is just a top of the iceberg...

 

2) such funny person half-understand topic and post description of the CURRENT situation and declares - KoS is optimal way !!!`1213 :>>> Forever !!@233544

 

That is a kind of loop in thinking...

 

We KNOW that NOW KoS is kind of optimal if you value YOUR time and only your TIME... We know this ! But we also know that CURRENTLY there is a problem with DayZ evolution - in broad sense: Chernarus (and rest maps) evolution and game as the product evolution... And KoS is just a manifestation of the problem. So we talk about possible FUTURE changes... Becouse we care... For free!  We just want to have some MORE fun...

 

There is other common mis-understandment... There are games where you can't kill other players and there are PvP areas, even Pv2P or Pv3P areas :) But DayZ is not like that. DayZ have kind like a real world freedom... AND NOONE WANT TO CHANGE THIS ! So freedom to do 'KoS' actions will stay. So die-hard protectors of that "play style" just have massive illusions, just like that famous Don KoSote...

 

So some do not belive KoS is a problem ? Bambi KoS is a main problem - becouse current game state FORCES to such idiotic actions: you camp some area for players and noone comes there for some time, then bambi appears... You play to have fun, right ? More: you was camping in the first place becouse game FORCES you to do exactly this - becouse there is nothing more interesting to do... There is nothing what is commonly called mid-game/end-game objective... Zombie interaction is boring, player interaction is the king ! Pity that "player interaction" means !kill him! only...

 

 

I missed early DayZ described in movie above. Rare stuff can improve gameplay but it can incrase KoS stupidity - community already is devastated. And rare stuff means game is harder to play for many, that means: lower game popularity. And we want EXTREMAL popularity :) And this is a MAIN goal ! We need something interesting to do !

 

[What's new in Cherno? 0]

It's probably already been said.. but..

 

Killing on sight isn't necessarily the same as someone who is trigger happy.

 

Killing on sight is when you get a player who only want to kill players just for the sake of killing players. It doesn't matter if they're a bandit or survivor, it doesn't matter if they have loot or they don't have loot, and it doesn't even matter if they're a threat or not. It's all about killing them as if there's an imaginary scoreboard that tracks your character's kill/death ratio on the server.

 

A perfect example of this type of player(s): they sit atop the tall buildings in Cherno and pick off any players until they run out of ammo and/or are killed themselves.

 

As for curbing the problem with trigger happy players? I just don't think you can without making the environment absolutely brutal. For instance, making zombies such a threat that you wouldn't dare discharge your weapon in cities. Like having them out run the players, being in overwhelming numbers, doing insane damage, adaptive to their environment (climbing ladders, going through back entrances, etc).

 

I don't think a humanity system will ever work, though. Simply because if people were worried about repercussions of their actions then the humanity system would be working now. That is unless you want to force gamey arcade features like character traits or whatever. In the end people are player-killing because surviving is a breeze and banditry/killing on site is the only rewarding challenge.

Edited August 18, 2013 by What's new in Cherno?

[tommes 331]

Everyone knows it easier to kill people

 

No, it's not. Killing PPL is the hardest. Killing Zeds is easy. The only real threat while that is attracting other players.

 

And tommes......... Really? Just really?

You only want pvp....without the annoying spastic zombies? Why are you even bothering to play? You must know that the SA will be nothing like that so this game will be nothing like you want it to be, it's people like you joining this game that are adding to KOS when you don't even want to be involved in the zombie apocalypse

Wasteland is for you, it has everything you need and no zombies

 

Wasteland is fun but it lacks the looting part of DayZ. I don't care about base building as well, so wasteland is ok, but not THE game to play for me.

It might very well be that Standalone will disappoint me. Fighting infections is not what gives me excitement. Where is the fun in that? Where is the fun in just running around to find a can of beans?

Sorry, but I want excitement. Hunting dangerous adversaries is exciting. That's why my favorite targets are geared and aggressive  players. I don't shoot weaklings or friendlies. Often enough I refrained from shooting someone point blank in the back because I felt it's to cheap despite beeing shot in the back quite often enough while still low geared. Sometimes I attack players just to give them some excitement. He or they might lose their gear but they sure got an adrenalin rush in return. That's what gaming is all about. Not getting bored to hell running hours through empty landscape or chatting by a campfire.

Edited August 19, 2013 by tommes

[ace5762 (DayZ) 20]

Well one of the big problems is that a great majority of bandits are not bandits at all- they're psychopaths, talking in terms of the game, they just kill for fun. I think the problem comes with the fact that it's very hard for a game to convey the impact of taking a human life, and the big mental barriers that sane, adjusted adults have that make them avoid avenues that would result in them killing another. In a game that doesn't really feel very real (It's good for simulating war, but not really humans or human nature), it's immensely hard to emulate that sort of thing.

[tommes 331]

The only real solution I see, is to divide the crowd and give each the game they want. There should be a version strictly optimized for PvP. That would be enough. Players like me would go there by themselves. DayZ would have to be optimized for co-op, with much more but less spastic Zeds plus more of that survival nuisance.

[Alias Mias 37]

There is another way. I remember seeing a post somewhere about giving players skills. For example, a player could bandage so many people his medical skill levelled up, he could now bandage faster or get 2 uses out of 1 bandage or something. If someone repaired a lot of vehicles, their mechanical skill would level up, and they would now be able to take parts off of some vehicles and put them on others. However, the thing about these skills is that when you die, their all gone. Your character gets completely reset. This would increase the value of life as well as encourage people to group up with others who have valuable skills. Since killing them would erase their skills, it would be beneficial to keep them around, as least until your skills level. Nothing overpowered, like being able to blood bag 12 times with 1 bag. It would be limited of course, but I think it would work.

[SteveLord 32]

Adding "skills" creates another avenue for bugs and exploits. And it wouldn't change behavior at all. Majority of players would still trust whoever is on VOIP with them, which is the right thing to do.

 

Next you'll be wanting a LFG system similar to what MMOs have.

Edited August 19, 2013 by SteveLord

[tommes 331]

There is another way. I remember seeing a post somewhere about giving players skills. For example, a player could bandage so many people his medical skill levelled up, he could now bandage faster or get 2 uses out of 1 bandage or something. If someone repaired a lot of vehicles, their mechanical skill would level up, and they would now be able to take parts off of some vehicles and put them on others. However, the thing about these skills is that when you die, their all gone. Your character gets completely reset. This would increase the value of life as well as encourage people to group up with others who have valuable skills. Since killing them would erase their skills, it would be beneficial to keep them around, as least until your skills level. Nothing overpowered, like being able to blood bag 12 times with 1 bag. It would be limited of course, but I think it would work.

When some player is coming your way with a gun in his hand you shoot him before being able to assess his skillset. Period.

[Siberian (DayZ) 527]

The only real solution I see, is to divide the crowd and give each the game they want. There should be a version strictly optimized for PvP. That would be enough. Players like me would go there by themselves. DayZ would have to be optimized for co-op, with much more but less spastic Zeds plus more of that survival nuisance.

 

 

this is EXACTLY why all games that have pvp and PVE mixed have rules..

 

if you dont have rules, the game will degenerate down into its simpliest form..it just will..

 

without Rocket changing his mind on having "no rules" the game will never return from its current KoS issues.

 

there are lots of MMO's that have excellent PVE/PVP mixs he should be looking at.

[SteveLord 32]

Dayz is not an MMO. Not even close. That is a totally separate genre designed around offering and rewarding for the completion of goals/quests.

[tommes 331]

this is EXACTLY why all games that have pvp and PVE mixed have rules..

 

if you dont have rules, the game will degenerate down into its simpliest form..it just will..

 

without Rocket changing his mind on having "no rules" the game will never return from its current KoS issues.

 

there are lots of MMO's that have excellent PVE/PVP mixs he should be looking at.

 

The Zombie Apocalypse has no rules unless the ones of Zombieland! That was the main rule of DayZ. Rocket didn't want to copy other games but to create something different and special.

 

But here it shows what my initial point was about: two different kinds of players. Role players and co-opers vs. PVP guys. Two different mindsets that don't mix that well. The shooters don't want to be bothered by some skilltree mechanics.

[ZomboWTF 527]

I would love to know the borders of mapsizes in dayz, i once thought chernarus was allready taking it to the max, but there are maps 8 times and even bigger than that

 

if we only could get some servers capable of handling more than 60 players, maybe around a hundred, huge maps would be very much fun and give players more room to navigate without meeting the same people over and over again, which might push back KoS because you know a person (i hate playertag servers anyway, so for me not that much of a problem)

 

i am not a very good mapmaker for small games like counterctrike: source, and i guess i dont even have to try on arma, since the map wouldn't be very populr anyway, yet the maps i know of just don't quite get the right atmosphere

 

thirsk was very fun, also lingor was pretty good (too much military spawns though) and taviana, even if praised by so many people, is stretched to thin, and Celle had the best woods

 

kind of missing the point right now, but i guess for a good gameplay and changing encounters, more players and bigger maps on a single server would be very helpfull

[tommes 331]

Maps don't change player behaviour.

[R.J. 70]

Interesting. I guess the AS50/ M107 removal experiment was a total failure.

[Dagwood 680]

Stricter requirements to achieve independent survival is the key. The game is boring without pvp in its current state. For the majority of players anyway. When the SA drops and the game is more about exploring and survival, many of these coast dwelling spawn killers will move on or stick to breaking point and overwatch

[ZomboWTF 527]

Maps don't change player behaviour.

Yeah, as if there wasn't more PvP on Lingor and Namalsk, less PvP on Taviana (without origins mind you) and moderate levels on chernarus...

 

There are many things factorgin the behavior of people, also how often people meet etc. including:

-Percentage of enterable buildings

-Size of Citys

-Size of the Map

-Number of Military spawns (too many and too few are both encouraging excessive pvp)

-Size of forrests and big fields without cover

 

please, if you don't know what you're talking about, just don't say anything

[-Gews- 7443]

The OP has a very good point...

When your gear is more important than your life and when people kill themselves to get new spawns or because they get sick, is that "authentic"? At all? No.

I don't see an easy way to make someone's life more valuable, though. Most players don't really care (me included).

[Garmalak 16]

Talking about realism, yeah, this is realistic:

 

GROUP OF BANDITS SEE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE LIGHTLY DRESSED AND WITH REVOLVERS

Bandit: "Dude look a those weapons"

Bandit 2: "I'm zeroing on them..."

Bandit 3: "Take the shot LOL I need a revolver"

*BOOM*

NOOB 2 FALLS TO THE GROUND

Noob 1: "h0ly cr4p wat iz happen1 ho did u die! I---"

*BOOM*

Bandit 3: Nice they had good sh** on them, like beans

Bandit 2: Oh good, I need beans.