PVP Philosophy & 3 Suggestions make it more intense, less casual/unemotional killing

[Serrath 0]

THE ISSUE:

It's the zombie apocalypse. You've been surviving, and you've acquired a weapon. Now you encounter another player. If you're considering killing this person, it's probably one of these three reasons:

1) Paranoia: This player might kill you. You have a weapon, maybe he wants it? Maybe he needs food? Maybe he doesn't trust you and he's going to play it safe. In any event, your mistrust of him has caused you to consider shooting him.

2) Greed: This player has something you want. Maybe he's got something you NEED. Whether you're dying of thirst and suspect he's hoarding water (see: paranoia) or you're down to your last clip in that M1911, but you've got six clips that would fit nicely in his Lee Enfield... In any event, you've decided your best bet is to kill him to get it. Hell, maybe you're armed to the teeth, AK and everything, but his has a fancy sight on it.

3) Boredom: Yeah, I got some guns, I've got ammo, I've got food, but I've really got nothing to do. I don't feel like putting the time into building a chopper/car, so I'm gonna go shoot people for funsies. (lawl!)

Reason 1 is spectacular. It's why PvP is so essential to Day Z. Reason 2 is essential to Reason 1. Paranoia is key, and greed is key to creating paranoia. The frustration here is that players have difficulty telling whether the fellow with the makarov is going to shoot you in the back in the head and take your AK after your amicable exchange and agreement to work together. There needs to be a better mechanism for establishing trust.

Reason 3 is something of an issue. It doesn't add to gameplay for the victims, and it somewhat aggravates the issue of trust in the Paranoia & Greed mechanic. Fortunately, it's somewhat self-resolving since sniping noobs is bound to get boring after a while. (Or else the poor sociopath will find small animals to torture and kill in his back yard, if not.)

THE SOLUTION:

If establishing trust is an issue and it's safer just to kill someone, make it more beneficial to work together. An example of making it more beneficial to work together is the blood transfusion mechanic. It's beautiful. Brilliant. Essential. Removing starting weapons and reducing starting supplies makes players less of an automatic target, and is a perfect example of the kind of Greed motivator you want to remove; it's no longer possible (or particularly helpful) to double your starting gear by locating a nooblet.

At the same time, we want PvP to be a tense, emotional experience, so anything that gives you more reasons to work together should also provide additional greed motivators. The idea here is that casual murder for a can of beans or an extra clip is boring; we want desperate murder for that last can of beans or those last seven shots.

Anything that increases the benefits of cooperation while simultaneously increasing paranoia should do the trick. We want tension to remain high, but we also want to eliminate casual murder. Every kill/death should be exciting and purposeful.

Start survivors at less than full blood? (Increase max to 13000 or decrease starting blood moderately.)

Cooperation: You'd need a transfusion off the bat to be as strong as possible.

Greed: Food/blood is more valuable.

More cooperative goals:

Cooperation: Reaching the Northwest Airfield is generally a team job. Razorwire, carrying capacity, and other difficulties predicate teamwork. Similarly, putting together a vehicle, due to carrying constraints, is a team job. Additional team jobs like putting together a generator to reach new loot (maybe some stash is hidden behind an electrical-controlled gate) would inspire more teamwork. If a horde of zombies were attracted by the noise generated, this would reinforce that aspect.

Greed: Special loot will attract unwanted attention from opportunistic bandits.

Bleed more from gunshot wounds:

Cooperation: If a gunshot wound is going to bleed significantly faster than any other injury, maybe you'll think twice before attacking another human with a gun. The need for transfusions will necessitate more teamwork.

Greed: Medical supplies (bandages, blood bags) become more valuable.

WHAT'S THE UPSHOT OF IT ALL?

Any "solution" to PvP issues must increase both paranoia and greed motivators. We want to discourage casual violence, and at the same time heighten the tension between players. And clearly, I haven't figured out how to make text bold. Further suggestions in this thread are encouraged. Remember: The goal here is to decrease the number of casual murders; we want more cooperation and more paranoia at the same time.

[JessDOA 1]

Mm, ok.

So you have key locations within the map. That if you can hold it free of Zeds. You get a reward. However, it is made so difficult one person couldn't do it without some major work or planning help.

Maybe find a NPC docter who knows where a plasma bank is with other important medical supplies. He needs an escort to a specific location where ONLY he can open the bunker up.

Or a barried Ammo, equipment catche is found. Where you have to use loud equipment to dig it out, even explosives. Drawing every Zed within 20Kliks to you. *laughs*

Just a thought or two *grins*

[rutok 4]

Your points are good, but the premise is flawed. What if pvp is not an "issue" that needs to be solved? Maybe its intended?

There are tons of cooperative goals and motivators in World of Warcraft but people still kill each other on pvp servers. (oldschool example ftw)

[Serrath 0]

I'm not saying PvP is an issue. I'm saying casual killing doesn't contribute to the experience. PvP should be an intense experience. Did you read the full post, or just the beginning? The idea takes a while to develop.

[kurozael 22]

Spoken and formatted like a games designer. This was great to read and I completely agree.

Your points are good' date=' but the premise is flawed. What if pvp is not an "issue" that needs to be solved? Maybe its intended?

There are tons of cooperative goals and motivators in World of Warcraft but people still kill each other on pvp servers. (oldschool example ftw)

[/quote']

PVP isn't the issue, the issue is people killing out of boredom.

[Serrath 0]

I'm not trying to fix boredom, and you'll always have a few sociopaths. The idea here is to fix the murders that go along the lines of:

"We're outside of aggro range of any zombies, and this guy might have some food or something that'd come in handy a while down the road. I certainly don't need anything now, but I might as well just kill him and see what he's got..."

Good PvP is tense, exciting, and emotional. The scenario described was not. This thread is not to eliminate PvP, it's not to prevent boredom killing, it's to reduce instances of the scenario above and replace them with tense, emotional PvP encounters.

[Ipod732 1]

I can relate to what he is talking about.(It was very well written by the way).I was going to a specific area with a friend trying to meet up with someone else.Some random sadistic player decided it was funny to kill all 3 of us with his AK.What has to be done to fix such to make it an emotional and intense situation is by learning our peers' minds and finding away to psychologically find a loophole to teach those like that sadistic player that you can't survive on your own.

[Tomibo 2]

Good thread and interesting topic!

I too think casual murder ought to happen less, and the decision to remove starter weapons certainly helped DayZ become less Deathmatch-like. This design philosophy relies purely on psychology, rather than throwing artificial walls in the players face. IMO, any solution to further decrease casual murder and promote cooperation should be cast in the same mold.

Suggestion:

Decrease pvp-damage by X%. This should make murder less attractive because a) it takes more ammo to kill players and b) you run more risk of being shot yourself in longer firefights. This will slightly promote cooperation, and make casual murder less attractive an option, while still having complete freedom of choice.

What do you think?

[leo235 2]

reducing damage wont help at all. If I know that one full mag from the makarov wont kill me I can shoot makarovians from any distance.

Damage should be superrandom. Dont really know if it already is from the few hits ive gotten, but there should be a chance to get hit by a sniper-rifle and only lose 1k blood without starting to bleed, while a hit from the revolver to the chest should have a chance to be be deadly. even instantly deadly.

[Tomibo 2]

reducing damage wont help at all. If I know that one full mag from the makarov wont kill me I can shoot makarovians from any distance.

Damage should be superrandom. Dont really know if it already is from the few hits ive gotten' date=' but there should be a chance to get hit by a sniper-rifle and only lose 1k blood without starting to bleed, while a hit from the revolver to the chest should have a chance to be be deadly. even instantly deadly.

[/quote']

I dont think your point carries much weight. While its true that sniping

''makarovians'' from a distance would still be a relatively save business, there's more situations where damage reduction would make you think twice about starting a firefight.

That said, some degree of damage randomization is also an interesting suggestion! It'll make gunfights more of a risky business.

[leo235 2]

reducing damage wont help at all. If I know that one full mag from the makarov wont kill me I can shoot makarovians from any distance.

Damage should be superrandom. Dont really know if it already is from the few hits ive gotten' date=' but there should be a chance to get hit by a sniper-rifle and only lose 1k blood without starting to bleed, while a hit from the revolver to the chest should have a chance to be be deadly. even instantly deadly.

[/quote']

I dont think your point carries much weight. While its true that sniping

''makarovians'' from a distance would still be a relatively save business, there's more situations where damage reduction would make you think twice about starting a firefight.

That said, some degree of damage randomization is also an interesting suggestion! It'll make gunfights more of a risky business.

Nuh uh

You need to prove how damage reduction would help.

I say: At some point it makes it improssible to kill someone with a weapon thus encouraging to shoot players with that weapon

while:

It doesnt discourage me from picking any fight where my damage output is higher than my enemies. Just like it is now. The only fight that it would hinder is two people with the makarov who know that the best they can haev here is to lose 2 full mags and likely blood for some makarov ammo and some stuff.

You dont wan to put every weapon on that level do you?

Also I was saying that you could kill people with a makarov on any distance then. If I knew they had to reload and I have a revolver I have more chance of winning that engagement than I have now ( given that the damage difference stays the same but both damage levels are reduced.)

[Bribase 251]

I think randomsing the damage is a great step towards limiting casual murderers. While an AS50 round to the head should still mean instant death, players should have to think to themselves "my AK round may make him bleed out but his retalliation may just kill me before that happens".

This goes hand in hand with the realism aspect. You can actually be shot in the chest and easily survive if it misses major organs and arteries. On the other hand, even low calibre bullets in the right (or wrong) place can kill instantly. Knowing the efficacy of your weapon vs Zs is vital and should stay predictable but I'm all for some randomness when it comes to PvP kills.

---

Nuh uh

You need to prove how damage reduction would help.

I say: At some point it makes it improssible to kill someone with a weapon thus encouraging to shoot players with that weapon

You're not following. It's not about damage reduction but damage randomness; While multiple rounds will multiply your chance to kill, the damage you deal isn't certain, while a lucky shot from a makarov has a small chance to kill outright or maim in retaliation. Players will be less inclined to murder and loot when there is a small but significant chance of coming off worse than their victim.

[FlashHawk4 44]

I think randomsing the damage is a great step towards limiting casual murderers. While an AS50 round to the head should still mean instant death' date=' players should have to think to themselves "my AK round may make him bleed out but his retalliation may just kill me before that happens".

This goes hand in hand with the realism aspect. You can actually be shot in the chest and easily survive if it misses major organs and arteries. On the other hand, even low calibre bullets in the right (or wrong) place can kill instantly. Knowing the efficacy of your weapon vs Zs is vital and should stay predictable but I'm all for some randomness when it comes to PvP kills.

[hr']

Nuh uh

You need to prove how damage reduction would help.

I say: At some point it makes it improssible to kill someone with a weapon thus encouraging to shoot players with that weapon

You're not following. It's not about damage reduction but damage randomness; While multiple rounds will multiply your chance to kill' date=' the damage you deal isn't certain, while a lucky shot from a makarov has a small chance to kill outright or maim in retaliation. Players will be less inclined to murder and loot when there is a small but significant chance of coming off worse than their victim.

[/quote']

This game is close to realism. I shoot you in the chest with a 5.45 bullet, it will tumble through your internal organs, rolling and flattening as it shreds your heart, lungs, and everything else your fragile existence needs to continue. I refuse to see a world where that does not hold true.

And I always hit the chest or head. I'm a good shot in this game. I refuse to have to shoot someone six times when I killed someone with one shot in the same place. If anything, the arms, legs, lower body, etc. etc. shouldn't be kill-shots, because after all, they're typically not. You'd bleed out painfully, but sometimes you can keep fighting.

But if you think toying with the statistics and coding of a game will make its players act completely different, you're wrong. What you're saying is like this:

I think that if pawns in chess had to roll dice to determine whether they can take a larger piece, as opposed to the standard diagonal-take system used now, then people would stop playing chess offensively and work together for peace and love.

[Bribase 251]

And I always hit the chest or head. I'm a good shot in this game. I refuse to have to shoot someone six times when I killed someone with one shot in the same place.

You're absolutely right here. A weapons mechanic that makes some people seem impervious to damage would simply be annoying. But what if the bell curve of damage for a low calibre weapon has a slight chance to kill outright while a high calibre weapon has a slightly higher chance to cause major bleeding instead of a kill shot? That doesn't mean that six shots to the chest will cause no effect' date=' they will bleed out and lose consciousness much faster and multiply your chance of a kill.

But if you think toying with the statistics and coding of a game will make its players act completely different, you're wrong. What you're saying is like this:

I think that if pawns in chess had to roll dice to determine whether they can take a larger piece, as opposed to the standard diagonal-take system used now, then people would stop playing chess offensively and work together for peace and love.

In my mind, what it means is that opening fire on someone unawares with a more random damage mechanic increases your chances of retaliation and possble injury or death. People learn that attacking players can mean mutually assured destruction. Players will learn that lesson fast.

The chess analogy is flawed. Chess is a mathematical game with almost no component of luck. Day Z is all about luck; that heli drop that you managed to recover, finding that extra mag while you were deep in cherno, crawling on a broken leg when you find a friendly squad to barter with. The element of luck can be employed to make better armed opponents think twice about opening fire.

[3rdparty 229]

XD Nice thread, although tbh i do think there is another motivating factor that contributes to casual killing and thats the debug mointor. Although i think its cool that ye do have your stats recorded, they probably should be given to you at the end of your life.

I think theres far to many peeps that are driven by the flawed assumption that theyll come any where near the leaderboard out of 300,000+

[FlashHawk4 44]

And I always hit the chest or head. I'm a good shot in this game. I refuse to have to shoot someone six times when I killed someone with one shot in the same place.

You're absolutely right here. A weapons mechanic that makes some people seem impervious to damage would simply be annoying. But what if the bell curve of damage for a low calibre weapon has a slight chance to kill outright while a high calibre weapon has a slightly higher chance to cause major bleeding instead of a kill shot? That doesn't mean that six shots to the chest will cause no effect' date=' they will bleed out and lose consciousness much faster and multiply your chance of a kill.

But if you think toying with the statistics and coding of a game will make its players act completely different, you're wrong. What you're saying is like this:

I think that if pawns in chess had to roll dice to determine whether they can take a larger piece, as opposed to the standard diagonal-take system used now, then people would stop playing chess offensively and work together for peace and love.

In my mind, what it means is that opening fire on someone unawares with a more random damage mechanic increases your chances of retaliation and possble injury or death. People learn that attacking players can mean mutually assured destruction. Players will learn that lesson fast.

The chess analogy is flawed. Chess is a mathematical game with almost no component of luck. Day Z is all about luck; that heli drop that you managed to recover, finding that extra mag while you were deep in cherno, crawling on a broken leg when you find a friendly squad to barter with. The element of luck can be employed to make better armed opponents think twice about opening fire.

True, but I just realized something. You're making your points with the assumption that the shots being fired are hitting most of the time, and I'm arguing back with the assumption that they're usually hitting core areas of the body.

And as we all know, accuracy is 80% shooter.

I'm not all that fond of tampering with the underlying algorithms and whatnot of video games, but I think we could increase the sight sway of firearms, so that the problem isn't the difference between a hit and a kill, it's the difference between a kill and a miss. I'm sure some people would protest their loss of impossibly amazing accuracy, but in all honesty, characters in this game shoot better than most special forces operatives, just like all other games. I know it might be frustrating because it's a factor that's out of your control, even more than real life, but it's the more realistic of the suggestions that have come out here.

Agree?

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Reason 1 is spectacular....Reason 2 is essential...Reason 3 is something of an issue. It doesn't add to gameplay for the victims

Sorry' date=' dude.

It's clear you put some thought into your post, but this makes absolutely no sense.

From the victims' point of view, reasons 1, 2, and 3 [i']are exactly the same.

How can the victims' game play be differently impacted by the motivations of their enemies when they have absolutely no idea what those motivations even are?

Your post also ignores the fact that 1, 2, and 3 are not mutually exclusive. I can kill you because I'm paranoid and bored. Or bored and greedy. Or a little bit of all three. It's not just red, white or blue there are all shades of reasons to kill and from the point of view of the person who just had their brain blown out through a hole in the back of their skull it really makes not one lick of goddamn difference what their assailant's particular reasons were for pulling the trigger.

Lastly, more cooperative elements are great, but they're not going to change PvP. The most effective PvPers are already working in small- to medium-sized teams. More cooperative elements will bolster their advantage over lone survivors, not reduce it.

So, yeah. I don't know. There's a lot wrong with your post even though it's presented well and sincere.

Cheers.

[Tomibo 2]

Nuh uh

You need to prove how damage reduction would help.

I say: At some point it makes it improssible to kill someone with a weapon thus encouraging to shoot players with that weapon

while:

It doesnt discourage me from picking any fight where my damage output is higher than my enemies. Just like it is now. The only fight that it would hinder is two people with the makarov who know that the best they can haev here is to lose 2 full mags and likely blood for some makarov ammo and some stuff.

You dont wan to put every weapon on that level do you?

Also I was saying that you could kill people with a makarov on any distance then. If I knew they had to reload and I have a revolver I have more chance of winning that engagement than I have now ( given that the damage difference stays the same but both damage levels are reduced.)

I'll try to make my point clear: Damage-reduction will increase the chance that the aggressor gets wounded, because the victim has more time to shoot back. Who wins the fight is irrelevant. It's all about increasing the cost of aggresive behaviour.

If I shoot someone in the back and he instantly dies, there's no risk on my part. If, however, he has time to turn around and shoot back, I'm more likely to get shot and loose blood in the process. Regardless wether I "win" the fight, you see?

[StealthyBrayden 6]

I like, I like... Though I think the blood should remain at 13000 only for 30 minutes at which it decreases to 12000 where it stays unless a transfusion is given again.

Like blood doping

[leo235 2]

If I shoot someone in the back and he instantly dies, there's no risk on my part. If, however, he has time to turn around and shoot back, I'm more likely to get shot and loose blood in the process. Regardless wether I "win" the fight, you see?

And when that happens without reduced damage you have a higher chance of dying. Damage reduction makes it less likely to die against people who are less equipped than you. Damage reduction will make weapons with large clip sizes kind.

[Bludy 324]

Mm' date=' ok.

So you have key locations within the map. That if you can hold it free of Zeds. You get a reward. However, it is made so difficult one person couldn't do it without some major work or planning help.

Maybe find a NPC docter who knows where a plasma bank is with other important medical supplies. He needs an escort to a specific location where ONLY he can open the bunker up.

Or a barried Ammo, equipment catche is found. Where you have to use loud equipment to dig it out, even explosives. Drawing every Zed within 20Kliks to you. *laughs*

Just a thought or two *grins*

[/quote']

maybe these parts of ''quest/opportunity'' items could be in your inventory at start, in a casual way and not given to a npc, so when approaching another player you could ask him if he carries what needed to go to the place..and also you could spawn with these things or not..

[Tomibo 2]

If I shoot someone in the back and he instantly dies' date=' there's no risk on my part. If, however, he has time to turn around and shoot back, I'm more likely to get shot and loose blood in the process. Regardless wether I "win" the fight, you see?

[/quote']

And when that happens without reduced damage you have a higher chance of dying. Damage reduction makes it less likely to die against people who are less equipped than you. Damage reduction will make weapons with large clip sizes kind.

Again, its not about the chance of dying. It's about the increased chance of getting wounded in a firefight. Spelling it out: it doesnt matter who dies. What matters, is that both parties should be worse off: either dead, or severly wounded. It's all about creating a Lose-Lose situation.

Who's better or lesser equiped is also beside the point. And wether damagereduction will benefit certain types of weapons over others is a valid concern, but something that can easily be rebalanced.

[Serrath 0]

Reducing damage is the opposite of what I'm trying to do here. I want PVP to be more tense, more suspenseful. Hell, to that end it'd be better if players were damaged as easily as zombies; if an M1911 round is all it takes to put you down, you're gonna be pretty paranoid.

I'm not trying to make PvP fair, I'm not trying to make PvP less worth your while, I just want it to be more emotionally intense.

Life's unfair, it's not this game's job to fix that. That said, dealing with armed strangers in a post-apocalyptic survival scenario gets your heart racing, and it is the game's job to replicate that.

[Howler 12]

I agree with OP. Well constructed topic too.

The amount of shots it takes to kill a zombie should in theory be the same as it takes to kill a player. That would certainly make things more tense. Besides, one bullet does usually mean death.

Also, the increasing of co-operative goals would make survivors more likely to work together. Blood bags are as you said a tribute to how excellent teamwork can be. Epi-pens are also an example of this. More items should require another person's activation to promote these kinds of situations.