Just wanted to take a stab at clarifying KOS misconceptions

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

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.

It still wouldn't create an empathic link with the guy you're about to kick out of the game for ever.

And in my opinion the "existence" of this empathic link is slightly exagerated. I know that in this situation, IRL, if i had the SLIGHTEST doubt wether this or that guy could become a threat later down the line, i would pull the trigger.

You cannot expect everyone to have empathy for a complete stranger. It does exist and it's good that it does, but i don't think it affects everyone.

[Spockrock 18]

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. 

says the most immature person in the thread  :lol:

[myusername! 48]

It's quite sad and scarry the amount of people that believe and say they would shoot people in real life in these situations, even at the slightest doubt of the person becoming a threat down the line.
A human life is special, a concept you wouldn't be able to derive from these threads. I understand self defense and also taking care of a real threat. But shooting someone that you just have doubts about, a random feeling about, someone you don't know anything about and therefore are afraid of. Good grief.

Edited December 29, 2013 by theysaid...

[Jaybopper 49]

Killing on Sight will always happen obviously, however I am adamantly opposed to any form of punishment or reward system for any particular play style.

 

I'll neutralize anyone who I deem a threat. I try to avoid situations where I am not dictating the situation. But if I round a corner and someone is there, they'll eat lead. I don't take chances. I don't react well to being surprised. If I'm romping around the coast and I see someone, I'll just avoid them or move away. If I'm somewhere more risky, such as NW Airfield, the second I see anyone and if I'm in a position to engage them, I will.

 

That said I would agree that the referenced "COD" mindset is very apparent, in similar fashion to what happened in the mod. However you also have to realize that this game is currently devoid of zombies. Rocket's talked about wanting hundreds of zombies crawling and groaning around cities, and that plus their new AI (which is still obviously WIP) will significantly change the dynamics of the game.

 

The real issue is why should anyone /NOT/ kill on sight? Why should anyone want to work with a random stranger? The problem is that currently no one needs to. If you change the dynamics of the game from "Do I want to team up" to "I NEED to team up to get that loot", you add value to a players life. Albeit a selfish one of "what can you do for me", but that within itself is a strong motivator, if the person otherwise would be unable to secure the loot in question. Change WANT to NEED.

 

In my opinion until Zombies are implemented as the lethal, roaming, and destructive force they need to be, we cannot address reducing Player versus Player activities. We just do not know how the game will play out.

 

This brings another point. Leave the coast. Sure you're still likely to be killed on sight further up north, however you're significantly more likely to run into these undesirables on the coast. Balota, Cherno, Elektro.. all bad news.

 

All in all..

• No Zombies. Hopefully Rocket can live up to his goal of wanting tons of zombies, and making them an actual threat - unlike the mod in which they were mostly a joke or inconvenience.
• Easy to get Gear - which is greatly linked to the above.
• Anti-Server Hopping systems not currently functional/implemented
• Anti-Combat logging systems not currently functional/implemented

 

Add those things together and you're left with the following situation:

I'm geared. I'm well supplied. There's nothing I need, no zombies to kill. What do I do now?

 

And for a lot of people that answer is to kill people on the coast.

Stopped reading after this post. This guy for president.

[eliX0r 4]

this post is directed to everyone defending the KOS epidemic on dayz as a reflection of human nature.  also, to those who say that any artificial disincentive for murder coded into the game is tantamount to sacrilege.

 

Let's get the most important part of that whole argument cleared up.  No, human nature is not to shoot fuckall everyone on site for fun.  Someone who grief killed for fun in real life would, by definition, be a sociopath - in the fullest sense of the word.  How many people are sociopaths in real life?  Mental health experts estimate app. 1-3% of the US population are socipaths.  And that's benchmarked from an asshole country.  Imagine how low that number is in some place like canada or sweden where folks are taught Gensler's Golden Rule in utero.  How does that stat compare to the number of Dayz murderers?  Not very well, I suspect.  No, I don't believe dayz attracts sociopaths - none of the folks I've played with consistently (a few dozen, give or take) have shown the trademarks of sociopathy save 1 or 2.  But yes, many of them (and myself, a handful of times) have killed others on sight simply for shits (sorry, i regretted it afterwards...usually).  Why?  Because it's a videogame and as such you can kill someone without compunction.  Worst case scenario: Someone who just wanted to relax after work got their day ruined.  Best case: You make a spoiled brat rage.  Either way, no substantive harm is done.

 

In real life there would be more dire consequences to your actions.  Your pangs of conscience (unless you're part of that 1-3% who failed preschool) would cause you some substantial grief.  You'd have to consider things that aren't much fun to consider: Did he have a family?  What if he's taking care of someone who's bed-ridden? How do I know he would have hurt me, maybe he would have helped?  Sure, I can talk a big game about how killing someone to survive IRL is one of those things that's "just gotta get done ya know.  real talk, survivn bich" but I think that's bravado speaking, not clairvoyance.  The vast majority of us would give a much longer pause before pulling that trigger in a real life situation.

 

But again, it's just a game.  As such, I don't think it's "ruining realism" by adding artificial disincentives for murder.  It's the only way to account for the loss of a tormented conscience a legitimate murder would bring you.

 

My suggestion?:  Nausea, Vomiting, dizziness, anxiety, depression (and with that comes a weakened immune system) subsequently after committing a murder.  These are hallmarks not uncommonly reported after a person kills for the first time, even after killing in self defense.

 

But sociopaths, don't worry!  Because another, ancillary addition to the system could be "resistance" to the psychological and physical effects.  Say you're really a sociopathic douche in real life and you'd like to play like you'd live... well, if you manage to kill enough people in one life you would gain resistance to the aforementioned symptoms.  At least until you die, then you'd have to acclimate your character to murder again.

 

In closure, I don't think implementation of a murder disincentive is absolutely necessary; I still like the game, even with douchey wanks making freshspawns drink bleach while they sit back and giggle.  But it would even out some of the complaints instead of taking the lazy way out and pretending like you've done any sociological research by saying "fuk bruh, just humn nature".  This way both parties would have something to lose, not just the nice guys (and gals).  It would also balance out the fact that one of the quintessential demotivators for murder in real life (conscience) isn't nearly as prevalent in a video game.

 

/imamoron.  now it's time to go binge on some gay porn. read an exhilerating, non-fiction account of something.

 

 

 

/fail

Edited December 30, 2013 by eliX0r

[brzator47@gmail.com 524]

It still wouldn't create an empathic link with the guy you're about to kick out of the game for ever.

It probably wouldn't, yeah, but it would still change the way you play drastically because the real goal would be to survive. You certainly wouldn't run around actively seeking out gunfights for the sake of it. You wouldn't climb on top of a building sniping strangers just because you can. You wouldn't waste your ammo, and more importantly be willing to reveal your position alerting everyone in a x meter radius by shooting that guy on the coast with nothing on him. Basically, it would cut out the "KoS for the lulz" almost completely.

It still wouldn't encourage much cooperation/teaming up but it would be a much more accurate representation of "what would happen in real life".