Just wanted to take a stab at clarifying KOS misconceptions

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

That's basically how this conversation has gone for the last year and a half. It boils down to people wanting to play the role of the asshole and people calling them assholes for doing it. We're all just stating the obvious, neither side wins & both sides are right.

 

It's obvious no amount of public outcry is ever going to change this for either side. KOS will still KOS and players will still complain & debate about it. The only thing that I could see changing this is game mechanics. Not anti-kos game mechanics, but rather pro-teaming game mechanics. Or even pro-life game mechanics. Stuff giving value to another set of hands, another backpack, another body. Even if that means I'll be kiddnapped and held hostage until my captors decide they've drained enough of my blood and they're hungry enough to cook me up after execution. At least it's not a random bullet to the back of the head 8 times out of 10.

Edited December 28, 2013 by bad_mojo

[kingochaos 131]

/me sigh.

 

Your post started as something i thought was going to be interesting. But like all the others before you... you don't know anything about this subject.

So what are your thoughts?

 

I dont really agree with the western physiological assessments holding water in a true societal breakdown. Take East timor(seen this first hand), or somalia... shoot on sight would be considered merciful. And its not just the crazies, people end up in groups out of fear/survival, and they will do things that will blow your mind, just normal people. And its not just about survival, they go out of their ways to do it... kinda like dayz(except without the constraints of a video game) I guess they kinda feed of each other. But this the guilt would stop you... no, no it wont, when you are truly desperate. Groups will fight for power, and the most brutal will prevail, thats how violence works. And that is what happens when society truly breaks down. The strong take from the weak, the strong kill the weak. If it truly is a question of survival.

 

  But long story short, you can forget the PC bullshit, when it comes to true survival, we all have it in us to kill.

 

 But yea, i dont think much o killing new spawns on the beach in a video game. But err, if you are up north, you are fair game.

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

The whole "this is what it would be like in real life" thing is pretty silly, if for nothing else but the fact that the worst thing that can happen to you in this game is losing your items and you're respawned back on the coast a few seconds later. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where you only have one life in the game, you can't even rebuy it. Once you die, that's it, you don't get to play anymore. Would there be anywhere near as many people simply going around shooting everyone they see? Absolutely not. The way people play would change completely. And now compare that to risking getting killed in real life. Without any artificial disincentive for murder the game will never simulate what would happen in a similar real life scenario. Not even close.

[tlane 17]

The whole "this is what it would be like in real life" thing is pretty silly, if for nothing else but the fact that the worst thing that can happen to you in this game is losing your items and you're respawned back on the coast a few seconds later. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where you only have one life in the game, you can't even rebuy it. Once you die, that's it, you don't get to play anymore. Would there be anywhere near as many people simply going around shooting everyone they see? Absolutely not. The way people play would change completely. And now compare that to risking getting killed in real life. Without any artificial disincentive for murder the game will never simulate what would happen in a similar real life scenario. Not even close.

 

You sir have hit the fucking proverbial nail on its fucking proverbial head. My beans to you. 

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

For the millionth time. Punishing players who kill other players is absolutely, 100% NOT the way to go in this game. The only thing that will balance people's motivations is adding a more difficult environment and long-term objectives which require player cooperation. People kill each other all the time. They don't instantly become insane from it. It's fucking preposterous. If that were the case, people in Sudan, Darfur, Somalia, ect., would be having hallucinations every god damned day and the entire human race would self-destruct. From the beginning of mankind, all the way back to primitive tool users, people have been killing each other. It is literally a fact of everyday life. Punishing player killers is just plain stupid, not to mention gimmicky. What happens when a player has to kill someone out of self-defense? How can a computer program simulate human psychology? It simply can't. Stop suggesting this. It's the worst idea.

Edited December 28, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[ratiasu@hotmail.co.jp 122]

KOS is what I do so I do not waste my time by dying to a random who has very little to offer me as I have a clan. When I was still on my whitelisted private hive we had a stable community, and you'd build a reputation. And so far thats the only thing which ever made me think twice about killing someone. 

Edited December 28, 2013 by Ratiasu

[floj 393]

How can a computer program simulate human psychology?

 

It can't exactly... but it can approximate it at least.

 

'Have both players heard/seen each other? Are they mutually aware of each others location?'

'Is the victim holding anything antagonistic?'

 

Sure it needs more refinement, but the majority of KOS situations could be detected by simple logic.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

It can't exactly... but it can approximate it at least.

 

'Have both players heard/seen each other? Are they mutually aware of each others location?'

'Is the victim holding anything antagonistic?'

 

Sure it needs more refinement, but the majority of KOS situations could be detected by simple logic.

 

No. It cannot. A computer can't comprehend VON chat between two players. It cannot know what is happening in a situation the same way a human can. Approximation is not good enough. False positives would be rampant. Everyone would be getting the same negative side effects for murder equally. It doesn't make sense. You can't "know" if a person is aware of another person. What if they are 500m away and I spot them out of the corner of my eye? So what if I'm approaching another player with a gun? You can't possibly use a program to know my intentions. I keep a gun out for my own protection. My ultimate intention could be friendly. Maybe I'm only approaching them to talk to them and maybe give them some free stuff (as I often do). Do you think I'm going to run around with a can of fucking baked beans in my hands? Ridiculous. How would a computer be able to know what a person is planning to do, or why they did something? It's simply impossible, and stupid to even try.

Edited December 28, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[floj 393]

Look at it from the otherside, I'm not proposing for it to understand any communication:

 

Person gets shot

 

He hasn't seen/heard his assailant and is carrying nothing.

 

And since I said it needed refinement anyway I'm gonna add another couple of levels to the potential differentiation:

 

He's greater than X meters from his attacker and hasn't participated in any aggression of his own in the last  10 minutes...

 

That seems fairly unlikely to have any false positives.

[callsignBravo (DayZ) 323]

Why don't you just let people play how they want to play the game that they bought with THEIR MONEY. I'm so tiered of these immature posts. If you don't like it, don't play Dayz. 

he is not saying that he wants people to change, it is a realistic simulation game+zombies so things like this would be a welcome addition to most players because it would make the game more realistic

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Look at it from the otherside, I'm not proposing for it to understand any communication:

 

Person gets shot

 

He hasn't seen/heard his assailant and is carrying nothing.

 

And since I said it needed refinement anyway I'm gonna add another couple of levels to the potential differentiation:

 

He's greater than X meters from his attacker and hasn't participated in any aggression of his own in the last  10 minutes...

 

That seems fairly unlikely to have any false positives.

 

You cannot know if someone is aware of another person or not! What if your screen is displaying another player, but you, as a flawed human being, failed to notice them? I've got an idea, if you are such a programming genius, then go and make the program that you are proposing. How do you define an "act of aggression"? There are many different ways of being aggressive. This could be a refusal to provide medical assistance to another player. In certain situations, that could be an act of aggression. You simply cannot account for the millions, nay, billions of variable combinations that factor into an interaction between two people alone. What happens when you have to deal with three, four, or more people interacting all at the same time? The system would not work. It would ultimately be a waste of time to try and predict and judge human behavior in that way. There's a reason that in real life you have to be prosecuted for a crime and a real person has to examine the evidence available and use their best judgment. If computers could figure out human nature, we wouldn't need judges or juries now would we?

Edited December 28, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Chaingunfighter 917]

How do we know that people wouldn't go around and shoot everyone they could? Today they don't happen a lot because most people know that we have a substantially large police force who would end the killing spree or those people are simply in mental asylums. After the apocalypse happens, it's far less likely that the remaining government force is going to be able to police around and stop everyone who may be shooting up a bunch of survivors or whatnot. In real life you're not going to be going around and stealing stuff from buildings, unless it's the actual apocalypse, in which case you probably would. That's the point; in the apocalypse there are no more limitations so who are we to say people wouldn't go around and kill mindlessly.

[Flagella 69]

I think people have spent to long on the forums than in the game

I haven't been shot mindlessly since I went to the NWAF which is fair enough to be honest

I only ever shoot unarmed people if they don't listen or stick up the finger

But other than that I don't see this kosing very often

[floj 393]

Sally...

 

I'm just thinking of potential solutions to boring KOS-ing - I'm not a programmer (beyond a very basic hobbyist level) but I do understand logic and game mechanics. Why are you getting so ragey and argumentative about my suggestions?

 

I'm not trying to catch every single KOS situation, just eliminate a large number of the most boringly predictable ones in a practical way - Rocket has already said that he's not a particular fan of pvp so I suspect he'll probably be implementing some kind of measure himself anyways... til then you better get up on that coastal roof and make the most of your easy kills.

[HIHBGaming 14]

KOS shouldn't be punished like most are trying to do and posting about. In saying that, there must be some kind of consequence or thought process involved in KOS rather than mindlessly running around shooting people in the face.

My thoughts is when Zeds are a threat, loot tables are where they should be and the environment is a factor KOS will be lessened. If that KOSer wants to take that shot, he will actively have to think about that last bullet, those Zeds mobbing him or any other factors. At the moment there is absolutely nothing to think about.

When these features are implemented, If that KOSer in fact doesn't think(and continually does so), their demise will be almost guaranteed and that will be their consequence. The choice will be there's to make and it won't be by some gamey introduced sort of shit.

This may also lead to people having to actually interact. Hey, what a novel idea.

 

This will come in time, as for now being very early Alpha with none of the above features KOS is rampant and I think, just has to be waited out.

[fathairybeast 246]

Sally...

 

I'm just thinking of potential solutions to boring KOS-ing - I'm not a programmer (beyond a very basic hobbyist level) but I do understand logic and game mechanics. Why are you getting so ragey and argumentative about my suggestions?

 

Word.  I started this thread in the hopes of getting people talking.  All it seemed to do for most is wad panties like a son of a bitch.  I think it's high-time for me to abandon thread.

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

I think people have spent to long on the forums than in the game

I haven't been shot mindlessly since I went to the NWAF which is fair enough to be honest

I only ever shoot unarmed people if they don't listen or stick up the finger

But other than that I don't see this kosing very often

 

Spend a few days trying to approach players in a non-threatening way. Or just hang out in a major city on the coast and talk to people. Even quicker if you find a gun and kill a few zombies with it, like ringing the dinner bell.

 

You have to walk in the shoes of the most vulnerable before you can comment on their situation. If you're good at playing DayZ stealthily, KOS isn't such a big issue. That doesn't mean stealth is the answer, it just means stealthy players are lucky they don't have to deal with it as much.

[captainvette2112 84]

This is the dumbest post ever....

 

You have absolutely no idea what the murder rate would be in a end of society apocalypse situation.  To believe morality would remain unchanged in a pure survival mode world is pretty naive IMO. KoS-ing could possibly be the norm.  

 

If you were starving would you kill for a can a beans?  Likewise if you were starving would you kill to defend your can of beans?

[Zogvarn 118]

This topic= horse

 

The responses = hitting the horse

 

Horse has been dead for 18+ months.

 

The whole things has been done 1000's of times already. The mods need to just lock every one of these threads. Nothing new comes from them.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Zogvarn

[the_annoying_fin 11]

This is the dumbest post ever....

 

You have absolutely no idea what the murder rate would be in a end of society apocalypse situation.  To believe morality would remain unchanged in a pure survival mode world is pretty naive IMO. KoS-ing could possibly be the norm.  

 

If you were starving would you kill for a can a beans?  Likewise if you were starving would you kill to defend your can of beans?

Have my can of :beans:  so you don't have to kill anybody to get some food in your little tummy

[xX_fr0st-w0lf_Xx (DayZ) 343]

You walking near mogilevka, to your right you see a man armed with an m4 and some pretty decent loot. He doesn't see you. You too have an m4, and you have clear shot and are 100% sure that you can kill him from this range and angle.

 

Give me one good reason not to pull that trigger.

 

I can give you 50 reason why you should.

 

This is the foundation of KOS,

 

It is like the rain, you can find ways to avoid it, hide from it and shelter from it, but you can't, no matter how hard you try, stop the rain.

 

Much how you can't stop kos. 

[myusername! 48]

I agree with many points you mentioned in that opening statement.

 

Here's a post along similar lines that I had posted elsewhere:

 

DayZ is a realistic, zombie apocalypse, survival simulator. So even though player choice is the biggest aspect of the game; the game is confined some what to reality. Excessive kos/call of duty deathmatch/griefing is not something that would occur in reality as previous posts have explained and contrasts greatly with the aspects of dayz that are real like: one life, food, water, sickness, ect; so if DayZ is going to remain realistic the problem of excessive kos/call of duty deathmatch/griefing will have to be controlled/discouraged in some way, whichever way the development team decides to correct it, if they decide to correct it.

 

I personally think they will implement something since DayZ is more than a pvp shooter set in a zombie apocalypse but instead a realistic, zombie apocalypse, survival simulator that has an in depth survival mechanic that will continue to gain depth as content is added to DayZ. If DayZ remains a pvp shooter in a zombie apocalypse setting the devs are wasting their time designing and implementing all of the interactive, survival game mechanics (like handcuffs, food, water, sickness) because these mechanics are hardly used when people spawn, run straight to an m4 and then shoot everyone they see until their character itself is shot and killed. And the people that play the game as intended, using the survival mechanics will eventually quit playing because they have no chance against the previously mentioned player that spawns, grabs an m4 and then shoots and kills until their character itself dies.

 

The game needs a realistic consequence for shooting someone (this would not include self defense), a reason not to shoot someone; right now there is nothing like that so most shoot and kill whoever they see. If there is no consequence (which is unrealistic) people will shoot and kill on sight to avoid that risky player interaction that DayZ intended, it's taking the easy way out. As long as there is no consequence (an unrealistic aspect that clashes with the rest of DayZ that is real) excessive kos/call of duty deathmatch/griefing will continue to happen.

Edited December 28, 2013 by theysaid...

[myusername! 48]

This is the dumbest post ever....

 

You have absolutely no idea what the murder rate would be in a end of society apocalypse situation.  To believe morality would remain unchanged in a pure survival mode world is pretty naive IMO. KoS-ing could possibly be the norm.  

 

If you were starving would you kill for a can a beans?  Likewise if you were starving would you kill to defend your can of beans?

Beans, food, water, anything you need to keep your character alive is pretty easy to come by in DayZ; the majority of killing in dayz is "just because I can" which then triggers "everyone is kos, if I dont kos I will lose everytime, lets all kos."

 

As others have posted, people would not go around shooting everyone they see even if an apocalypse actually happened; in fact, killing every one you meet would more likely decrease your chances of survival than increase them (you would have no one to help you out, you would also be singled out and killed). And most people, if they went around killing everyone would definitely suffer some kind of emotional negative/sickness. Since DayZ is a "realistic" survival game, I see nothing wrong with implementing something along the lines of a realistic, emotional negative that effects your character in some way, whether that is grey screen, blurry screen, shaky hands or anything else that fits appropriately. As others have posted, DayZ is a "realistic", zombie apocalypse, survival game; implementing some sort of emotional negative for killing people (this does not have to include self defense) would comply with DayZ's realistic nature and continue to add realism to the game, all the while encouraging interaction and communication, making the game interactive as DayZ was intended. People would now have a realistic consequence for shooting someone, a reason to not shoot someone.

 

 

You walking near mogilevka, to your right you see a man armed with an m4 and some pretty decent loot. He doesn't see you. You too have an m4, and you have clear shot and are 100% sure that you can kill him from this range and angle.

 

Give me one good reason not to pull that trigger.

 

I can give you 50 reason why you should.

 

You could try to interact/communicate, possibly team up with him. However, with the DayZ community being rabid and kos/griefing happy right now, you would be better off shooting him.

This is the reason a consequence for shooting someone needs to be implemented.

 

What are the 49 reasons you should pull the trigger? I've mentioned the first of the 50.

http://thelifestream.net/forums/images/smilies/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

Edited December 28, 2013 by theysaid...

[Some random guy 1]

"Better you make the mistake of trusting me than I make the mistake of trusting you." - Zombieland

[Propulsion_Joe 97]

The group I play with does not KOS people we come across in our town we control unless they have a gun on them.  It is easier to kill them than it is to trust them.  We have a belief that you cannot trust people to do the right thing, so we must prevent them from doing the wrong thing.  Anyone that comes to our area that is armed with a melee weapon or unarmed is treat to food and drink as we prepare to sacrifice them on the altar of the death god. 

Edited December 28, 2013 by Propulsion_Joe