Quo vadis ethics?

[Sreep 0]

Hello Dayz Forums!

 

I started playing the dayz-mod at the very beginning and i loved the survival-aspect of the game. I grouped with people and we explored Chernarus, killed zombies and fixed helicopters. :)

For me being bandit was an option as i had done nearly everything. Like in MMOs if you did every instance a hundered times....been there done that...it all ends in pvp.

But shooting new spawns for example(dishonorable) was for idiots. It was an unwritten code of ethics. B)

 

As the standalone came out i bought it. And as expected it is beautiful in every way. (there are bugs ect. but it is an alpha so who cares)

 

The only thing that bothers me is the behavior of most of the community, it changed i guess. There is very few interaction between players. I expected to communicate with players and group up like in the old days but 99 out of 100 players behave like Patrick Bateman.

I say hi -> get murdered with an axe...

...even if i don't have anything but especially if i have anything the don't have yet.

 

For me dayz changed with the standalone. I gear up as fast as i can, hide in the woods and shoot everything that moves without questioning.

 

Is that the way it should be? Pure deathmatch? :huh:

 

Envy is one of the main reasons in my opinion. From zero to hero in one second. It is tempting i admit.

 

My suggestion:

 

Equipment from players that were murdered by other players should be "ruined" completely.

 

-exceptions could be ammunition and/or food.

 

What is your opinion?

 

Greetings, Sreep.

 

[Knightmare (DayZ) 109]

No. It goes against the core of the game to add artificial penalties to player killing. That said, keep in mind, if I want your helmet, I can't shoot you in the head - otherwise I'll be looting a ruined helmet.

 

The current system for damaging items based on where you hit them is great, but what you're suggesting is overkill.

 

My best advice is stay away from people with axes.

[wgaf 251]

All game mechanics should be geared toward being plausible and realistic. 

 

The game consists of human interactions, the more realistically the circumstances are simulated, the better the interactions and the better the game. 

 

Bad people tend to look an awful lot like good people. You can't know peoples intentions, only get an idea of their capabilities, so you have to judge them based on their capabilities and not ascribe motives or intentions.

 

It's probably worth pointing out that the lack of 'stuff to do' in this early-alpha release is mainly because it is an early-alpha release.

[Ken Bean 175]

No. It goes against the core of the game to add artificial penalties to player killing. That said, keep in mind, if I want your helmet, I can't shoot you in the head - otherwise I'll be looting a ruined helmet.

The current system for damaging items based on where you hit them is great, but what you're suggesting is overkill.

My best advice is stay away from people with axes.

Problem is, it is a game and therefore most people bahave like shooting other would be a game. The pvp aspect is not very realistic. Who would start hunting unarmed people with a dmr in real life while having a backpack full of beans, simply because of being bored and because they enjoy it?

So to counter that behaviour in my opinion penalties could be justified.

[Sreep 0]

These days people play games with less emotions. "If i am an asshole, they can be one too or the can go cry, it is just a game and if i am bored i log out" so being an asshole turns out more effective than playing together.

 

And indeed it is just a game and as longe as nobody can judge you for your behavior, everything you do is legitimate and people agains it are just whiners and haters.

 

In fact killing other human beings is a crime and you are judged for doing it. At least you will suffer inside after a while when you did it.

Where is this effect ingame? Bad dreams, going crazy? Everyone is different as with the blood types ingame. But everybody spawns with the same strong mind? Maybe your character looses the will to live after killing an unarmed person that wasn't a threat? Just speaking of realism.

 

In dayz, as it is realistic, you are rewarded with loot instead.

Is this the learning effect from killing other friendly people in a realistic enviroment without a warning or a reason? Getting better loot?

You should think twice bevore you kill somebody that isn't even armed.

[Propulsion_Joe 97]

These days people play games with less emotions. "If i am an asshole, they can be one too or the can go cry, it is just a game and if i am bored i log out" so being an asshole turns out more effective than playing together.

 

And indeed it is just a game and as longe as nobody can judge you for your behavior, everything you do is legitimate and people agains it are just whiners and haters.

 

In fact killing other human beings is a crime and you are judged for doing it. At least you will suffer inside after a while when you did it.

Where is this effect ingame? Bad dreams, going crazy? Everyone is different as with the blood types ingame. But everybody spawns with the same strong mind? Maybe your character looses the will to live after killing an unarmed person that wasn't a threat? Just speaking of realism.

 

In dayz, as it is realistic, you are rewarded with loot instead.

Is this the learning effect from killing other friendly people in a realistic enviroment without a warning or a reason? Getting better loot?

You should think twice bevore you kill somebody that isn't even armed.

 

 

 

In a game where order has collapsed and you must survive at all costs, the only thing one should think about is eliminating risks.  Any person you encounter is a risk.  The only thing you should think of is how fast you should kill an unarmed person and where you do it from.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Propulsion_Joe

[wgaf 251]

Problem is, it is a game and therefore most people bahave like shooting other would be a game. The pvp aspect is not very realistic. Who would start hunting unarmed people with a dmr in real life while having a backpack full of beans, simply because of being bored and because they enjoy it?

So to counter that behaviour in my opinion penalties could be justified.

 

Wrongheaded, I'd say. 

 

The discrepancy between the real life and the game simulation is really just the stakes involved. People in real life have their real life at stake, and don't want to lose it. 

 

The solution is just to make the stakes higher in the game. Make it harder to get loot or make it so that the longer you're alive, you gain some kind of benefit that is reset if you die. 

 

The thing that makes DayZ an amazing game is that it really tried to be a simulator where all the content is created by player interactions, and where there really are stakes. 

 

If you trust someone and he kills you, you may lose many hours of work spent gathering gear. If you kill someone else, he may lose many hours of work. There are already stakes in the game, what would make the game better is to make the stakes higher. 

 

Risks and Rewards present in the situation in the game can and should be the only thing controlling player behavior in DayZ. 

 

Until God comes down and starts punishing bad people, it wouldn't be very realistic to put it into a simulation would it? 

Edited December 31, 2013 by HCHellCaptain

[Ken Bean 175]

In a game where order has collapsed and you must survive at all costs, the only thing one should think about is eliminating risks. Any person you encounter is a risk. The only thing you should think of is how fast you should kill an unarmed person and where you do it from.

Ever watched a Zombi movie? Do the survivors try to kill each other on sight or do they try to team up to increase the chances to survive together?

Or do they just shoot everyone because they got bored with still being alive?

So I think you are on the wrong way here. Folks which sarts a death match because of being bored exactly behave like being in a game and take all the immersion away.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Ken Bean

[Knightmare (DayZ) 109]

Problem is, it is a game and therefore most people bahave like shooting other would be a game. The pvp aspect is not very realistic. Who would start hunting unarmed people with a dmr in real life while having a backpack full of beans, simply because of being bored and because they enjoy it?

So to counter that behaviour in my opinion penalties could be justified.

 

The whole it is a game argument and be used in both ways here.

 

You say game in respect to there being artificial penalties for certain types of behavior; where-as someone else could say it's a game so you have to expect there to be PvP since "it's just a game" and that you couldn't compare it to real life. Both positions have a point. And on top of that, who the hell even knows what would actually happen in this kind of a situation in real life anyways. Maximum Clusterfuck, Engage.

 

I'm not one of those elite KoSers that gets geared by server hopping and runs down to Balota's airfield and busts their proverbial nuts as they shoot fresh spawns. But I am the kind of person who doesn't take kindly to unknown folks waltzing into the zone I'm looting. Especially up North (and considering I leave the coast as soon as I spawn too). I'll kill you just to kill the threat you pose. Friendly is the web the spider weaves. I try to avoid contact with strangers but sometimes it just isn't possible.

 

I'm not a fan of the, as often coined, COD kiddie KoS mindset that has existed since the Mod, and primarily exists on the coastline. I think they are missing the point entirely. But it's just a game.

 

But with that being said, I am adamantly opposed to artificial penalties or rewards for any type of play style of behavioral patterns. At least for the time being. How can we address the dynamics of the game when the game is so incomplete; No Zombies, Nothing to do, No threat to get gear, No challenge to survive.

 

We have to wait and see how things pan out before trying to throw around punishments for play styles that aren't our own.

 

 

Ever watched a Zombi movie? Do the survivor try to kill each other on sight or do they to team up to increase the chances to survive together?

Or do they just shoot everyone because they got bored with still being alive?

Oh let me just write a screenplay then..

 

Bill: Damn I'm bored, lets go find random people to kill

Karen: Oh Bill ya'ole Bastard you.

 

BILL MURDERS hundreds of people as KAREN LAUGHS

 

That was easy. In all seriousness now though, we can guess what would happen, including analyzing human behavior and comparing it to similar horrific situations but at the end of the day everything is speculation. I'm not defending the KoS COD Kiddie "HAHA killin' fresh spawns, because I'm bored" mindset, but we have to be very careful about how we throw around the idea of "reality" for a situation that has never taken place.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Knightmare

[Propulsion_Joe 97]

Ever watched a Zombi movie? Do the survivors try to kill each other on sight or do they try to team up to increase the chances to survive together?

Or do they just shoot everyone because they got bored with still being alive?

So I think you are on the wrong way here. Folks which sarts a death match because of being bored exactly behave like being in a game and take all the immersion away.

 

I have seen several zombie movies in which groups of survivors will kill other groups for their stuff.  Unrelated, but have you ever read the book The Road, or seen the movie.  It is about the apocalypse, no zombies though.  Read that book or watch that movie and you will get a better idea.

[Murtag 3]

I basically try to play like I would act in the scenario and I'm sure as hell not a capable fight. Every time I've run in to someone I've waved or put my hands up, if it my weapon would drop in the process. If I really have to kill someone in this, I'll plan it so I take the least amount of damage. I'm not going to brawl with random strangers that could possibly kill me. The trigger happy people are likely to kill that stranger anyway. So long as I stay out of their way and they stay out of mine, things will most likely work out. I end up killing myself in much less dramatic ways, like rotten kiwis.

[Ken Bean 175]

I have seen several zombie movies in which groups of survivors will kill other groups for their stuff. Unrelated, but have you ever read the book The Road, or seen the movie. It is about the apocalypse, no zombies though. Read that book or watch that movie and you will get a better idea.

Yeah, I've seen the movie The Road but sorry, this is a dystopia (basically about how it should not be, like a filmed nihtmare or horror film), not realism. Don't confuse dystopia with realism or with a desired behavior. I personally am fed with people who mistake a dystopic movie for being realistic. This is a cheap excuse to behave like morons, nothing else.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Ken Bean

[wgaf 251]

Ever watched a Zombi movie? Do the survivors try to kill each other on sight or do they try to team up to increase the chances to survive together?

Or do they just shoot everyone because they got bored with still being alive?

So I think you are on the wrong way here. Folks which sarts a death match because of being bored exactly behave like being in a game and take all the immersion away.

 

This is a bad way of looking at it.

 

Movies are scripted fiction, they aren't real, they aren't real people behaving in real ways.

 

What we have that is better, is an experiment in a simulator. We simulate people in a situation like this, and make it as realistic as possible, and see what they do. No scripting, no plot, nothing but people interacting with other people and with their environment. To see what happens. 

 

It's called DayZ. 

Edited December 31, 2013 by HCHellCaptain

[Sreep 0]

The whole it is a game argument and be used in both ways here.

 

You say game in respect to there being artificial penalties for certain types of behavior; where-as someone else could say it's a game so you have to expect there to be PvP since "it's just a game" and that you couldn't compare it to real life. Both positions have a point. And on top of that, who the hell even knows what would actually happen in this kind of a situation in real life anyways. Maximum Clusterfuck, Engage.

 

I'm not one of those elite KoSers that gets geared by server hopping and runs down to Balota's airfield and busts their proverbial nuts as they shoot fresh spawns. But I am the kind of person who doesn't take kindly to unknown folks waltzing into the zone I'm looting. Especially up North (and considering I leave the coast as soon as I spawn too). I'll kill you just to kill the threat you pose. Friendly is the web the spider weaves. I try to avoid contact with strangers but sometimes it just isn't possible.

 

I'm not a fan of the, as often coined, COD kiddie KoS mindset that has existed since the Mod, and primarily exists on the coastline. I think they are missing the point entirely. But it's just a game.

 

But with that being said, I am adamantly opposed to artificial penalties or rewards for any type of play style of behavioral patterns. At least for the time being. How can we address the dynamics of the game when the game is so incomplete; No Zombies, Nothing to do, No threat to get gear, No challenge to survive.

 

We have to wait and see how things pan out before trying to throw around punishments for play styles that aren't our own.

 

I never meant to punish a play style. Sometimes even i decide to just kill anybody i see. But everytime i do there is a short moment where i hesitate - that is where humans consider the consequences. And i realize - there are none. Whether i do or not, nothing changes, except for the fact that i could get more loot if i kill unarmed humans too.

It is getting even better - the game rewards me for shooting unarmed people in the head, or even for executing them with a shot in the head, because my precious loot doesn't get damaged then.

I understand your ways of thinking, and they are ok. I just warn from the bad learning effect for junger or unexperienced players as this game formes psyche in a playful way.

[Propulsion_Joe 97]

Yeah, I've seen the movie The Road but sorry, this is a dystopia (basically about how it should not be, like a filmed nihtmare or horror film), not realism. Don't confuse dystopia with realism or with a desired behavior. I personally am fed with people who mistake a dystopic movie for being realistic. This is a cheap excuse to behave like morons, nothing else.

 

Sounds like you should stop playing the game.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Propulsion_Joe

[Ken Bean 175]

Hey, this is a survival game. It has to be realistic somewhere. A survival where people act like morons, actually meaning that if humanity would be like this in real life it would have been extincted ages ago, contradicts the survival aspect.

In other words, if people think they should play it as being a death match, dont call it survival game, just call it death match.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Ken Bean

[Knightmare (DayZ) 109]

I never meant to punish a play style. [..] I just warn from the bad learning effect for junger or unexperienced players as this game formes psyche in a playful way.

 

I get what you mean, but again, it is punishing a play style. If I want to play as the old-school bandit, which literally is robbing or killing you for your gear, I'd basically only be getting your ammo and beans (as per your exampled exception).

 

As far as a vicious cycle produced by undesirable behavior - I completely agree. Especially the coast-hugging bandit-pros with their fresh spawn sniping skills. The mod had plenty of this too. But again most of this tends to be limited to the shore. The people who don't learn to leave the coast, become the monsters they themselves were killed by. And the process repeats, and repeats.

 

I'll kill you for your gear, but what I enjoy more is hunting players who are hunting players.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Knightmare

[Sreep 0]

Sounds like you should stop playing the game.

 

So we're at the point where people post this? Aren't we able to discuss things?

 

By the way, there were so called "experiments" like "The Wave" or the "Stanford Prison Experiment" and all of them had to be aborded because people went violent or crazy.

Dayz isn't an experiment.

[Propulsion_Joe 97]

Hey, this is a survival game. It has to be realistic somewhere. A survival where people act like morons, actually meaning that if humanity would be like this in real life it would have been extincted ages ago, contradicts the survival aspect.

In other words, if people think they should play it as being a death match, dont call it survival game, just call it death match.

 

Read Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, that will tell you everything you need to know about how humans act devoid of order.

[Ken Bean 175]

Read Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, that will tell you everything you need to know about how humans act devoid of order.

Lolz, read Tristran Shandy and learn how life really is.

[Aussie Bogan 350]

 

Equipment from players that were murdered by other players should be "ruined" completely.

 

-exceptions could be ammunition and/or food.

 

 

I can't say this statement really works at all...

 

Why don't we keep our current system, when you kill someone, their body disappears in 5 sec or instantly depending on how quick they quit game... ;)

[Propulsion_Joe 97]

So we're at the point where people post this? Aren't we able to discuss things?

 

By the way, there were so called "experiments" like "The Wave" or the "Stanford Prison Experiment" and all of them had to be aborded because people went violent or crazy.

Dayz isn't an experiment.

 

Some people just kos everyone because it is just a game.  Remember some people are not as into this game as others.  I know the group I am part of kill people through medical experimentation because every person we kill is one less threat we have to worry about.  This in turn allows to continue our task (depopulating the coast).  

[Ken Bean 175]

Some people just kos everyone because it is just a game. Remember some people are not as into this game as others. I know the group I am part of kill people through medical experimentation because every person we kill is one less threat we have to worry about. This in turn allows to continue our task (depopulating the coast).

So am I right that you overtake every discussion which questiones mindless KoS because you think you and your group are awesome and you feel that everyone should know it?

Okay, let me start again.

Since this is ought to be a survival game and since KoS in real life has not been proven to be a valuable survival technic (there is no species that hunts itself down for bare enjoyment), some think, because that playstile is overly rewarding, without having drawbacks (which would be realistic, mind there's a reason why people actually can life together) - a penalty for deathmatcher can be justified.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Ken Bean

[jaginun 87]

So am I right that you overtake every discussion which questiones mindless KoS because you think you and your group are awesome and you feel that everyone should know it?

Okay, let me start again.

Since this is ought to be a survival game and since KoS in real life has not been proven to be a valuable survival technic (there is no species that subsequently hunts itself down for bare enjoyment),some think, because that playstile is overly rewarding, without having drawbacks (which would be realistic) - a penalty for deathmatcher can be justified.

 

Yep, but animals are just in the wilderness, most likely in their home turf where they have reliable animals to hunt or plants to feed off etc. In DayZ, we are talking about an actively hostile environment, where the people surviving are already the best of the best. It's not about 'bare enjoyment', it's about getting the upperhand, being able to survive, survival of the fittest etc. You see animals, fight, often kill eachother for ownership of a kill, don't you though? This is the exact same thing, except that we're in an even worse situation than the lions, so we don't just play along until we need to take the supplies. We take anything that we have to, for survival. If that means not giving another thought to friendly cooperation because they have a load of food or a good defencive weapon, then so be it.

[Ken Bean 175]

Yep, but animals are just in the wilderness, most likely in their home turf where they have reliable animals to hunt or plants to feed off etc. In DayZ, we are talking about an actively hostile environment, where the people surviving are already the best of the best. It's not about 'bare enjoyment', it's about getting the upperhand, being able to survive, survival of the fittest etc. You see animals, fight, often kill eachother for ownership of a kill, don't you though? This is the exact same thing, except that we're in an even worse situation than the lions, so we don't just play along until we need to take the supplies. We take anything that we have to, for survival. If that means not giving another thought to friendly cooperation because they have a load of food or a good defencive weapon, then so be it.

Mankind used to work together against the environment since its beginning. I dont see why the existence of Zeds (who just are quivalent to dangerous animals like crocodiles or lions) should be something entirely different. Yes, there are predators in nature, they dont primary hunt themselfes.

There is a difference between quality and quantity. Why? Because it definately HAS drawbacks. Thats why a penalty can be justified. It isnt that hard to understand.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Ken Bean