Solving Both End-Game/Meta-Game and KoS Problems At Once

[yessaul robinovich 42]

 

How about we get the existing game up to its potential first.

 

we're all in agreement with you on this. I think pendulum effect was encouraging a conversation about the long term, and looking at what the game is about to different people, being a sandbox.

i don't think thats a bad discussion to have, whether it affects underlying philosophical/social issues or technical limitations to overcome on the way to making the whole more than the sum of its parts (which it already is to some extent, or we wouldn't be here having this conversation..)

 

i think the sort of thread where things are actually being written for the purpose of being read is best...at least browsed through before the usual suspects start hammering keys in anger with bits of spittle flying at the screen.

 

 

I manage to stay alive, unlike you.

 

in order for these things to be funny, compromising or elicit some kind of a genuine reaction, they have to be at least slightly substantiated. you're slinging shit at me all ape-like despite the fact that i've written several pages worth of stuff in agreement with.. the point i presume you're trying to make?..    but yeah, dayz forum. reading comprehension. i mean, fuck, just..reading? i don't know, ask your doctor about ritalin?

Edited January 8, 2014 by yessaul robinovich

[karbiner 29]

Oh I've agreed with your sayings all allong but you started by going anal on my claim that every kos-thread gets 4576,5 people killed. Beside the fact that claim is bullshit(duh) you also made the assumption that all those deaths are direcly caused by said anti-kos-thread starters which proves to me that you are the one that has problems with being funny. But lets not get into that, we both know why you said it and we both know where my claim comes from. KoS will never stop and especially what you said about it is true. People with high gear don't want to take the risk communicating with others and lowgear folks are more dangerous because they have nothing and therefore play like they have nothing to lose. Hell there also is an kind of player who just experiments with the effects of rotten fruits on people or how well handcuffs work etc etc. But you can not deny the fact that 90% of the anti-kos folks complain about kos just because they generaly are bad players. They are often the ones that think that ingame interaction with other players is a must and therefore they make the easiest targets out of themselves. They think yelling "friendly" denies the other player the right to shoot him in the face and they clearly get angry about it. Yet they decide time after time to stick to the dangerous coasts (coast of duty) and they don't even try to go inland, missing out on the real gameplay imo.

[yessaul robinovich 42]

Oh I've agreed with your sayings all allong but you started by going anal on my claim that every kos-thread gets 4576,5 people killed. Beside the fact that claim is bullshit(duh) you also made the assumption that all those deaths are direcly caused by said anti-kos-thread starters which proves to me that you are the one that has problems with being funny. But lets not get into that, we both know why you said it and we both know where my claim comes from. KoS will never stop and especially what you said about it is true. People with high gear don't want to take the risk communicating with others and lowgear folks are more dangerous because they have nothing and therefore play like they have nothing to lose. Hell there also is an kind of player who just experiments with the effects of rotten fruits on people or how well handcuffs work etc etc. But you can not deny the fact that 90% of the anti-kos folks complain about kos just because they generaly are bad players. They are often the ones that think that ingame interaction with other players is a must and therefore they make the easiest targets out of themselves. They think yelling "friendly" denies the other player the right to shoot him in the face and they clearly get angry about it. Yet they decide time after time to stick to the dangerous coasts (coast of duty) and they don't even try to go inland, missing out on the real gameplay imo.

 

whoa there! no problem with a sense of humour, you don't go full aggro on people for failing to laugh at a joke you made.. just sayin'.  you've hit upon something that i want to talk about more and explore in finer detail. and i've read this logic in some of the other things you've written prior. so lets talk about skill and being good/bad at the game. how do you define being good at the game, and also what kind of metrics are you using to gauge performance. i'd like to better understand what your goalposts are when it comes to the game. dayz experiments, or at least aspires to a sandbox format you can kind of see some examples of that in a couple of true mmos, which it isn't just yet, but you can see from some of the design choices taken so far between the mod and the standalone that the team's intention, at least, is to take it there.

 

Lets assume that the goal is simply to survive through whatever means necessary, alone or with a group of people. While i agree that killing things is a primary component of dayz as it stands, a good deal more is achieved by having mechanics that let you do and excel at things that are equally-necessary. and you kind of point out that there are all kinds of people who like to explore and experiment and do all sorts of things besides sitting with a sniper rifle waiting for someone to run by. I'm not saying that isn't a valid way of playing, nor that treating the game as team deathmatch is any less valid.. just that the more ways there exist to play the game and excel in different aspects of it, the better for the game as a whole.

 

tl;dr: both the 'waaah make it stop! ' and the 'yolo murdererz  noscope die bambi ur doing it wrong' camps appear to be missing the point.

[HazZarD87 166]

It's all water under the bridge. If people choose to snipe you just for the hell of it then nothing's going to stop them untill you take firearms out of the game. And then I know I would charge you with a fireaxe while screaming viking-ish warcries over VOIP... just for the heck of it. No thesis size post is going to change that simple truth.

[Pendulum Effect 15]

we're all in agreement with you on this. I think pendulum effect was encouraging a conversation about the long term, and looking at what the game is about to different people, being a sandbox.

i don't think thats a bad discussion to have, whether it affects underlying philosophical/social issues or technical limitations to overcome on the way to making the whole more than the sum of its parts (which it already is to some extent, or we wouldn't be here having this conversation..)

i think the sort of thread where things are actually being written for the purpose of being read is best...at least browsed through before the usual suspects start hammering keys in anger with bits of spittle flying at the screen.

in order for these things to be funny, compromising or elicit some kind of a genuine reaction, they have to be at least slightly substantiated. you're slinging shit at me all ape-like despite the fact that i've written several pages worth of stuff in agreement with.. the point i presume you're trying to make?.. but yeah, dayz forum. reading comprehension. i mean, fuck, just..reading? i don't know, ask your doctor about ritalin?

Thank you! I do want the game to live up to its potential first in the basic implementation of everything that has been discussed thus far. That is the first priority. However, it's never too early to foster great ideas to keep the development team and community interested in the long term success of this game. The more ideas we come up with collectively, the longer the lifespan of this game. It is the true nature of MMO style games in contrast to non multi-player games. Even games that are of non MMO architecture recognize that in order to stay relevant, they must continue to add new features and areas to explore. As humans we crave that which is new. So this, adding features concept, extends far beyond the KOS issue. It is entirely possible that it will become something entirely different by the time the framework is updated. If what Dean is working on now is considered the skeleton of the game, this would surely be considered the meat. Edited January 9, 2014 by Pendulum Effect

[yessaul robinovich 42]

he has been very vocal in his acknowledgement of the current state being a skeleton to build on, and his thoughts on further development with respect to endgame. in some ways the experience of initial survival is not extricable from endgame, and the main division between these experiences/resulting gameplay is the 'master hive' approach. if dean wants to have an easier time balancing the vanilla product, 'main hive' as it is currently understood should be abolished, and hive data stored separately with unique server identifiers on bohemia's side. i'm not saying you should trust server hosts with their own hive data (many admins will abuse it..) but the current implementation is not sustainable in trying to balance the game/resource availability/economy and these things are inextricably tied to the way people actually play the game/resulting mindset with, amongst other things, respect to pvp.

Edited January 9, 2014 by yessaul robinovich

[karbiner 29]

whoa there! no problem with a sense of humour, you don't go full aggro on people for failing to laugh at a joke you made.. just sayin'.  you've hit upon something that i want to talk about more and explore in finer detail. and i've read this logic in some of the other things you've written prior. so lets talk about skill and being good/bad at the game. how do you define being good at the game, and also what kind of metrics are you using to gauge performance. i'd like to better understand what your goalposts are when it comes to the game. dayz experiments, or at least aspires to a sandbox format you can kind of see some examples of that in a couple of true mmos, which it isn't just yet, but you can see from some of the design choices taken so far between the mod and the standalone that the team's intention, at least, is to take it there.

 

Lets assume that the goal is simply to survive through whatever means necessary, alone or with a group of people. While i agree that killing things is a primary component of dayz as it stands, a good deal more is achieved by having mechanics that let you do and excel at things that are equally-necessary. and you kind of point out that there are all kinds of people who like to explore and experiment and do all sorts of things besides sitting with a sniper rifle waiting for someone to run by. I'm not saying that isn't a valid way of playing, nor that treating the game as team deathmatch is any less valid.. just that the more ways there exist to play the game and excel in different aspects of it, the better for the game as a whole.

 

tl;dr: both the 'waaah make it stop! ' and the 'yolo murdererz  noscope die bambi ur doing it wrong' camps appear to be missing the point.

 

The "goal" is to do whatever you want and that is what, mainly bad players, don't understand. They are trying to force other players (namely KoS players) into a gameplay that the KoS-players didn't even buy the game for. They are literally thinking they can decide how one should play a game and that is just wrong. And lets not forget that the trailer for this very game shows players murdering other players so they knew BEFORE they bought this game PvP would be in there. Not that that is an argument for you but there will be more people reading this:)

 

I know my playingstyle and I know that its working for me. As for the mechanics side of things it will have to wait for more content I'm afraid. I play in a Arma3 clan and there we have all kinds of people with their own skillsets. My role in that clan is that of a pilot so when choppers emerge in DayZ and the guys find one ofcourse they will point towards me to fly the thing(unless there is another pilot maybe:)). On the other hand the clan also has an armored division and those guys know more about what to do when their vehicle comes under fire which makes them more prone to become our drivers. But yeah, without those vehicles we are all footsoldiers for the time being.

 

EDIT: If it will lower the KoS if they add new things I don't know since the mod DID have vehicles and what not from the beginning and I remember a lot of bambi-tears from those times aswell.

Edited January 9, 2014 by KarbineR

[Pendulum Effect 15]

I agree. The only problem, the way I see it, is the idea that you could theoretically have many characters and therefore not be as attached to your "one and only." Sure you would have your favorite character on your favorite server, but what if this server becomes full, gets taken down, temporarily offline, or no longer sees people logging on. Then your character and your progress are lost (or unable to be utilized). I'm trying to brain storm ideas that would combine servers in a drop in/drop out mechanic based on proximity, but then you have the issue of player created construction..

I'm curious if you have any ideas.

[yessaul robinovich 42]

I agree. The only problem, the way I see it, is the idea that you could theoretically have many characters and therefore not be as attached to your "one and only." Sure you would have your favorite character on your favorite server, but what if this server becomes full, gets taken down, temporarily offline, or no longer sees people logging on. Then your character and your progress are lost (or unable to be utilized). I'm trying to brain storm ideas that would combine servers in a drop in/drop out mechanic based on proximity, but then you have the issue of player created construction..

I'm curious if you have any ideas.

 

I don't really have a way to reconcile server migration with balancing economy/availability and consequently the behaviour amongst players that emerges as a result. the best i can offer is a vision of fewer servers running on more substantial hardware allocations/instances that can support higher player and entity counts necessary to take full advantage of the map and mechanics we currently have, and to encourage further development from there. I think this approach would also be liberating in ways for the developers because they would not have to be tied to performance of a low-end dayz server as a baseline for what is acceptable in taking the game further. giving up on server migration solves most of the problems, while creating relatively few like the issue you've outlined.

 

from my own experience,  have mostly played the vanilla mod over at the billy mays/BMRF servers. i found them originally because the white-list offered good protection from the script madness. But  also felt very comfortable with having my main character on just one server. I would also join other private hives that BMRF was running when the main server that i played was undergoing maintenance or down for whatever reason. In some ways the ability to create other characters on other servers allowed me to play with somewhat less stress, experiment without endangering my main 'life' that i was most attached to. I think it was kind of fine. many of my friends had joined over time, so there were people to play with, as well as some friends made in my adventures.

 

I find that the whole 'KOS problem' is less significant between constantly needing to expose yourself (or work with a group) in order to secure resources, and having a smaller community of regulars who are playing on the server one day after another. Though you can kill people with impunity and without any artificial constraints, you will eventually be acknowledged by various groups as dangerous/unfriendly and people may go out of their way to make your life difficult (nothing so black and white as heros or bandits, just various existing social circles on a server where you've got 40-50 people at all times and hundreds of individual characters regularly playing)

 

when you're playing alone, being a dick on a regular basis will eventually leave you getting hunted down by groups of people. at that point, however proficient you are at surviving or making others die, the odds simply aren't in your favour. while a pretty exciting way of playing the game, it doesn't exactly promote survival in the long-term, which some believe to be the goal more than others. i guess thats what makes the game fun in the end, the fact that different people are drawing completely different things out of the experience. If everyone just sat there holed up with their long-range scopes waiting for another person to run through their field of view, things would be pretty dull.

Edited January 9, 2014 by yessaul robinovich

[deathproof (DayZ) 1]

I will admit that I only read the first few pages of this thread, so I apologize if I am repeating things. 

 

I personally find that KOS is fairly annoying (being a new player) but that is because I find it so hard to see other players I need Doritos above their heads hahaha. But that is not my point. I accept it, and while I try to be friendly it usually ends bad for me most still try to kill me. As stated by others its probably got to do with the fact that it is basically a zombie survival game without zombies, and not a whole lot do being alpha and all. 

 

Anyway I was going to make the statement that KOS is not that strange, or different to what I think would actually happen if this scenario were real. At first I think most people would have a hard time killing someone, but as something like this progresses people would get desensitised to killing and violence. It would be hard to trust people you know let alone a stranger. 

[Pendulum Effect 15]

I don't really have a way to reconcile server migration with balancing economy/availability and consequently the behaviour amongst players that emerges as a result. the best i can offer is a vision of fewer servers running on more substantial hardware allocations/instances that can support higher player and entity counts necessary to take full advantage of the map and mechanics we currently have, and to encourage further development from there. I think this approach would also be liberating in ways for the developers because they would not have to be tied to performance of a low-end dayz server as a baseline for what is acceptable in taking the game further. giving up on server migration solves most of the problems, while creating relatively few like the issue you've outlined.

 

from my own experience,  have mostly played the vanilla mod over at the billy mays/BMRF servers. i found them originally because the white-list offered good protection from the script madness. But  also felt very comfortable with having my main character on just one server. I would also join other private hives that BMRF was running when the main server that i played was undergoing maintenance or down for whatever reason. In some ways the ability to create other characters on other servers allowed me to play with somewhat less stress, experiment without endangering my main 'life' that i was most attached to. I think it was kind of fine. many of my friends had joined over time, so there were people to play with, as well as some friends made in my adventures.

 

I find that the whole 'KOS problem' is less significant between constantly needing to expose yourself (or work with a group) in order to secure resources, and having a smaller community of regulars who are playing on the server one day after another. Though you can kill people with impunity and without any artificial constraints, you will eventually be acknowledged by various groups as dangerous/unfriendly and people may go out of their way to make your life difficult (nothing so black and white as heros or bandits, just various existing social circles on a server where you've got 40-50 people at all times and hundreds of individual characters regularly playing)

 

when you're playing alone, being a dick on a regular basis will eventually leave you getting hunted down by groups of people. at that point, however proficient you are at surviving or making others die, the odds simply aren't in your favour. while a pretty exciting way of playing the game, it doesn't exactly promote survival in the long-term, which some believe to be the goal more than others. i guess thats what makes the game fun in the end, the fact that different people are drawing completely different things out of the experience. If everyone just sat there holed up with their long-range scopes waiting for another person to run through their field of view, things would be pretty dull.

 

I guess I've never really played on a Private server based on my own prejudice, mainly because of the reasons I have expressed about being able to have several characters at once. I have had a "main" server that I played on quite a bit during the mod because my friends and I had vehicles and tents on there but after awhile we realized that the server became less and less populated due to our success in hoarding all the vehicles and a helicopter in which we were able to use to reclaim our vehicles. I suppose if we find an excellent private Hive to play on, we could give it a shot and see how it goes. I'm intrigued by your reasoning for it, so I feel compelled to take a chance.

 

Do you suggest any private servers?

 

 

I will admit that I only read the first few pages of this thread, so I apologize if I am repeating things. 

 

I personally find that KOS is fairly annoying (being a new player) but that is because I find it so hard to see other players I need Doritos above their heads hahaha. But that is not my point. I accept it, and while I try to be friendly it usually ends bad for me most still try to kill me. As stated by others its probably got to do with the fact that it is basically a zombie survival game without zombies, and not a whole lot do being alpha and all. 

 

Anyway I was going to make the statement that KOS is not that strange, or different to what I think would actually happen if this scenario were real. At first I think most people would have a hard time killing someone, but as something like this progresses people would get desensitised to killing and violence. It would be hard to trust people you know let alone a stranger. 

 

Oh, I agree. I still think there would be far greater dispersion in mentalities than there currently are in this game right now, though. A lot of people would try to cling to their semblance of humanity and law abiding behavior. Some wouldn't kill unless threatened. Some might be more acclimatized to violence. But as it stands right now, most realize it's a kill or be killed scenario. I love the tagline, "Fight the dead, fear the living." Because it's true. But the overall mindset of people in DayZ does not represent what I think a real life scenario might bring. I'm curious if there's a way to simulate that.   

[wgaf 251]

You guys forget the simple truth that everyone in the game who isn't your friend is your enemy. 

 

Survival means making self interested choices. Exterminating competition, exterminating threats, exterminating vermin. 

[ap1werks 5]

I enjoy reading this type of post, and while I think that I would dislike seeing some of these ideas ever make it into the final release, I can't condemn hypotheticals. That would discourage others from also releasing their own imaginings upon the forums, as twisted as those imaginings might be.

 

You are the most dangerous game.

 

Or, you could be.

 

As of now, the environment is too friendly to all players. Zombies are a part of that environment and are too soft. Players are the most dangerous hunter/game. They are either a part of that environment (populated server) or they are not a big factor (unpopulated server).

 

This is purely an indication of the games current status; unfinished. The endgame of dayz will be an evolution right up to its final release.

I personally would like the environment to scale to almost the threat level of a populated server.

 

For example, as a new spawn, say you fail at ninja-ing your way through a town, and a zombie hears you, I would like that zombies first agitated moan to trigger other zombies in the area to move towards your direction, slowly encircling, almost out of curiosity. That way, though only one zombie has detected your location through hearing, others will move in. If you are not keeping abreast of your surroundings, and are taking too long to loot, or perhaps stopped and ate that recently acquired can of tuna, you might find that upon trying to exit the building the way you came in is no longer an option. Now that exit has three zombies right outside the door. A glance out the windows shows others in the yard. They are there based on the possibility you are inside. So you head to the back, checking out more windows, and you see only one in that direction. Better odds. But the second you walk out that door, that zombie will see you. Which means more than curiosity. Which means, attack and eat. It gives a wail, all other zed in the area take note, and come at a run. You have time for one quick one-two on the zombie that spotted you, before you have to sprint for the hills. Now, thing is, with a pack of zombies on your trail, they are going to follow you for some time. If they lose you, they will still kind of wander in that direction, hopefully/possibly continuing on to another town. In this way, wandering packs, and perhaps even growing into a horde, and eventually a swarm might be possible. If they reach the absolute west or north, heck, the shore to the south and east, they act like a Roomba and come back around. In this way, the zombie behavior creates it's own unique events. One thing I envision is a sniper/looter whom server hops into NWAF right as 200 zombies are ambling across the tarmac. Imagine that player considering whether or not they have the ammo and the ability to take such a momentous task on. But first, and most lasting, I imagine them marveling at the sight. 

 

I would like looting to be serious, and not casual. If you open that door on the second floor of some house, why not have a zombie behind it? Buildings should be places for loot and death, and not merely from other players. I know when I encounter another player while looting, my heart rate goes up, just a tiny bit. So, I would like players to have a new procedure for opening doors: they step back and ready a weapon, or get ready to run. 

 

What I would really like to see is ramifications. A Butterfly Effect, but for zombies. That freshspawn leading a pack into the woods might mean that eventually some oldspawn trekking through the northern wilds could collide with an entirely untenable situation, and possibly result in them 'greeting the shore'. I envision a clan trying to slingshot mobs of zombies across the map to get them to slowly pinball towards cherno, or something like that. It would be a vast undertaking. 

 

Ultimately, the final release is going to be a compromise between technical considerations and game design itself. What we want it to do versus what it can do. 

[Pendulum Effect 15]

I enjoy reading this type of post, and while I think that I would dislike seeing some of these ideas ever make it into the final release, I can't condemn hypotheticals. That would discourage others from also releasing their own imaginings upon the forums, as twisted as those imaginings might be.

 

You are the most dangerous game.

 

Or, you could be.

 

As of now, the environment is too friendly to all players. Zombies are a part of that environment and are too soft. Players are the most dangerous hunter/game. They are either a part of that environment (populated server) or they are not a big factor (unpopulated server).

 

This is purely an indication of the games current status; unfinished. The endgame of dayz will be an evolution right up to its final release.

I personally would like the environment to scale to almost the threat level of a populated server.

 

For example, as a new spawn, say you fail at ninja-ing your way through a town, and a zombie hears you, I would like that zombies first agitated moan to trigger other zombies in the area to move towards your direction, slowly encircling, almost out of curiosity. That way, though only one zombie has detected your location through hearing, others will move in. If you are not keeping abreast of your surroundings, and are taking too long to loot, or perhaps stopped and ate that recently acquired can of tuna, you might find that upon trying to exit the building the way you came in is no longer an option. Now that exit has three zombies right outside the door. A glance out the windows shows others in the yard. They are there based on the possibility you are inside. So you head to the back, checking out more windows, and you see only one in that direction. Better odds. But the second you walk out that door, that zombie will see you. Which means more than curiosity. Which means, attack and eat. It gives a wail, all other zed in the area take note, and come at a run. You have time for one quick one-two on the zombie that spotted you, before you have to sprint for the hills. Now, thing is, with a pack of zombies on your trail, they are going to follow you for some time. If they lose you, they will still kind of wander in that direction, hopefully/possibly continuing on to another town. In this way, wandering packs, and perhaps even growing into a horde, and eventually a swarm might be possible. If they reach the absolute west or north, heck, the shore to the south and east, they act like a Roomba and come back around. In this way, the zombie behavior creates it's own unique events. One thing I envision is a sniper/looter whom server hops into NWAF right as 200 zombies are ambling across the tarmac. Imagine that player considering whether or not they have the ammo and the ability to take such a momentous task on. But first, and most lasting, I imagine them marveling at the sight. 

 

I would like looting to be serious, and not casual. If you open that door on the second floor of some house, why not have a zombie behind it? Buildings should be places for loot and death, and not merely from other players. I know when I encounter another player while looting, my heart rate goes up, just a tiny bit. So, I would like players to have a new procedure for opening doors: they step back and ready a weapon, or get ready to run. 

 

What I would really like to see is ramifications. A Butterfly Effect, but for zombies. That freshspawn leading a pack into the woods might mean that eventually some oldspawn trekking through the northern wilds could collide with an entirely untenable situation, and possibly result in them 'greeting the shore'. I envision a clan trying to slingshot mobs of zombies across the map to get them to slowly pinball towards cherno, or something like that. It would be a vast undertaking. 

 

Ultimately, the final release is going to be a compromise between technical considerations and game design itself. What we want it to do versus what it can do. 

 

Thank you for this thoughtful post. Other than a handful of people, most have been too quick to bash without reading or flat out provide no constructiveness. You have demonstrated both higher brain function and common decency, all of which were lost to several users in this particular thread.

 

I love your idea on zombie behavior and I agree 1000%. These are the zombies I hope we all see in the future, with more believable animations and behaviors. While this idea would be better implemented after they have sorted zombies clipping through buildings and attacking through floors and walls, the idea is very compelling for game play and providing a bigger threat for people to cooperate against. I imagine scenarios like (and I cringe to bring this up) when Shane shot Otis, leaving him crippled and unable to get away. This way if you were ever being closed in on by zombies, you could sacrifice your friend while you slipped away from zombies that were curiously approaching your position. This means zombies can still kill the most battle hardened survivor if he slips up and makes too much noise. He could find himself stuck in a house with no where to go. So does he wait for someone to come make more noise to lead the zombies away, or does he try to shoot them all and slip out before more arrive? I imagine much of this zombie behavior being included in my vision for the zombie infested military harbor. I also agree that zombies should be found behind closed doors and buildings. Not all the time, but every once in awhile you should come across one that scares the shit out of you. In that moment you make a knee-jerk reaction: you kill it silently or with a gun. If you fire your weapon, that one mistake just brought a world of hurt to your position. It could be another survivor or the infected; the possibilities are endless with that.

[Jaybopper 49]

KoS is prevalent at the moment because there is no other thrill in the game that matches PvP, NOT just because of a lack of other things to do!

Adding re-spawning loot, base building and car maintenance and all sorts of shit to do isn't going to balance KoS but ideas like the OP will!!

 

If you want to encourage RP-PvE and cooperative play then you need to make these things just as thrilling as PvP. The ideas in the OP, IMO, would accomplish that.

[Pendulum Effect 15]

KoS is prevalent at the moment because there is no other thrill in the game that matches PvP, NOT just because of a lack of other things to do!

Adding re-spawning loot, base building and car maintenance and all sorts of shit to do isn't going to balance KoS but ideas like the OP will!!

 

If you want to encourage RP-PvE and cooperative play then you need to make these things just as thrilling as PvP. The ideas in the OP, IMO, would accomplish that.

 

I've been looking for a way to say that, so thank you. There doesn't need to be huge, complex ways to provide variety and challenges. They can be simple (at least concept wise) and let them run it's course, which has been what DayZ is all about anyway. Competition for supplies and better loot will always be a part of the game but you could, for a brief moment, put all that aside for and fear the more direct threat of zombies or the absolute unknown. Without adding new stuff, the veterans will very rarely feel the terror of not knowing where everything is on the map or not knowing where people could be sniping from or not knowing how to successfully navigate and loot each and every town. If you come up on a random base, you don't know the exact layout or how many zombies spawn or what the loot table might present. Or the island with nothing but zombies that can tear you to shreds in a heartbeat if you make one wrong move. That gives you a nervous feeling in your gut. That's something you never want to lose.

[yessaul robinovich 42]

you want to encourage RP-PvE 

 

wrong game, sorry.  dayz does not encourage 'role playing' in the traditional sense. quite the opposite  - dayz elicits visceral emotional responses from the player behind the avatar that often blur the line between the two. it is not about how your character would feel, but how *you* feel in any given situation. as for cooperative play not being exciting, that is a ridiculous thing. what you're trying to say is that you want to incentivise PVE play, which i point out as being very challenging because, ideally, there are far more zombies than there is available ammo and there isn't (and there cannot be) any point to killing them besides preventing your own death. how you choose to interpret this set of circumstances is entirely up to you,  but the experience is very, ah, genuine and pure in being what it is. from what you're saying, you want to gamify that into some kind of 'left 4 dead online' - i don't think that is the same experience.

 

as for people being more dangerous and adversarial than zombies, i suggest you pick up any number of films or literature on the subject. even the tropey genre itself seems to acknowledge it. at its core, this is and always will be a pvp experience. real question is what will serve to drive it in the future as the game stabilises and acquires more depth-- whether it is things like fear and necessity or boredom for lack of end-game depth. 

 

OP suggestion borrows endgame from wow. I (and possibly dean, since he's states several times he was in touch with folks at CCP) feel that games like early UO and EVE are much closer in how they approach endgame to the direction that better fits dayz in the long term. Also, i'm saying that a lot of the gameplay systems that are currently nonexistent or placeholders greatly serve to motivate individual playstyle. for example, if we had something like a stamina system that took into account the amount of weight carried by an individual, not only would a wide variety of different-sized packs be viable, but a single individual player would find themselves less capable of carrying a kit for all of post-apocalyptic life's little occasions AND expect the same agility as a fresh spawn in jeans & t-shirt or another player operating in a group with delegated responsibilities. 

 

And that is just one example that compels people to collaborate out of real need. Not because of WOW raids for epic lewt, brah.

Edited January 9, 2014 by yessaul robinovich

[FAAmecanic 5]

i dun give a shit if theres a bunch of rad new distractions for end game dudes like me im stil guna camp water pumps and ice kunts lool

 

im not tryin to trik cunts by typin with capital leters and punctuation and shit like yuo do

 

 

And this is why some KoS will never be solved.  Little 13 yr old Jimmy's mommy allows him to play games in the basement.  When Little Jimmy isnt busy exploring the joys of Internet porn and touching himself, he is running around shooting new spawns for fun because he is of the Playstation/Xbox  Battlefield 4 mentaility where that is all there is to do.

 

Anyway....back to the original topic.  I like all the ideas (play much Origins and Epoch... OP?  seems like a lot of ideas from those mods are what made them great, and made it into your first post).  Some I would think would be too hard/costly/time consuming for the dev team to implement, others may just be a rescripting.

 

One thing that kept me comming back to play the Origins mod for MONTHs was trying to gather enough gear to raid the Island of Sector B.  For those that never played Origins..this was an island that the rich retreated to after the outbreak.  It had a huge wall around it, with AI guards inside and outside the wall.  Inside the wall was a town, industrial area, and airfield that had all the uber gear for you to grab.  But you had to kill the elite guards that the rich people hired first.  So this island gave you the reason to loot, gather a team, and raid.  I made LOTS of friends of other clans on a private server just so we could team up and go to Sect B.

 

I say once Dean and Co. get all the announced features implemented it will cut down on KoS as there is many other distractions.  Right now the only thing we have to do is either A) KoS or  B ) hunt the KoS snipers in Cherno/Electro (my fav past time).

Edited January 9, 2014 by FAAmecanic

[Plan_B 82]

First thing first: PvE and RP server are viable. Stop saying people looking to play that way are dumb.

 

I've played on the mod in a RP server and we had a ton of fun. Lots of conflict, lots of war.

 

 

As for Dayz, I know CCP are making something good with EVE (I've played alot of that too). 

 

The big question is: How to make Dayz somekind of EVE for survival? Eve have alot of repetition in it. Crafting....

 

What about this:

 

Food is going rarer: You need to hunt, farm, herd your food.

Ammo is gone: Collect empty case, do your own gun powder, ect...

Clothing are getting ruined: Collect wool from sheep, leather from dead animals, ect...

 

This might get some kind of economy going on. Maybe it's silly.

[yessaul robinovich 42]

First thing first: PvE and RP server are viable. Stop saying people looking to play that way are dumb.

 

I've played on the mod in a RP server and we had a ton of fun. Lots of conflict, lots of war.

 

 

As for Dayz, I know CCP are making something good with EVE (I've played alot of that too). 

 

The big question is: How to make Dayz somekind of EVE for survival? Eve have alot of repetition in it. Crafting....

 

What about this:

 

Food is going rarer: You need to hunt, farm, herd your food.

Ammo is gone: Collect empty case, do your own gun powder, ect...

Clothing are getting ruined: Collect wool from sheep, leather from dead animals, ect...

 

This might get some kind of economy going on. Maybe it's silly.

 

pve servers are viable. rp servers are viable, servers where you have no zombies and increased spawns are viable,  servers where you have people parachuting out of the sky driving tanks and spawning with 50 cal sniper rifles are viable. basically anything you can modify the standalone for, same as with the mod before, and run a server for is nominally viable. but at that point you might as well..you know, play arma 3? or left 4 dead? or other games that, from the ground up, offer the experience you are seeking. instead you are talking about the game that differs from these experiences precisely in the way we're discussing here, and suggesting that someone might take that core part of it out. 

 

all of the examples you've cited are viable because someone can - and in all likelihood will do it. but they are also not dayz. they dilute its evocative power of visceral response, sterilize the experience and create distance between player and character. at that point you might introduce stats, 'skills', end-bosses and cinematic cut-scenes. you're playing stalker.

----------------------------------------------

 

re: crafting.. i don't think we need to go so far down as collecting wool and tanning leather. just the ability to recycle items into some kind of base components - scrap metal, yarns, rubber, etc etc.. and then create multi-part recipe tree for complex products similar to the structure of tech2 equipment. ie: more complex products of combinations that are combined with other ready items and can be combined with other weapon parts or mods. field-stripping broken/degraded weapons that may not function but could be used to make others.. recycling clothing into scraps that can be re-fitted into other things. harvesting things from the environment (hunting,fishing, foraging, cultivating) and creating various provisions..

 

relevant part is about 4 minutes in, i think..  but its all good.

 

http://youtu.be/9ZJnFfoi7gg

 

 

Edited January 9, 2014 by yessaul robinovich

[Jaybopper 49]

Just want to explain myself a bit.

 

dayz elicits visceral emotional responses from the player

 

This is true but think about it, you only get out of this game what you put into it. If you spawn and think you're playing Left4Dead or FarCry3 you're going to get very bored very fast. The game can offer you excellent visual and audible stimulus but if you can't be bothered with it you're not going to enjoy it, thus you have to put yourself in your character's shoes. Allow yourself to be taken in. This is the role play I'm referring to.

 

 

what you're trying to say is that you want to incentivise PVE play, which i point out as being very challenging because, ideally, there are far more zombies than there is available ammo and there isn't (and there cannot be) any point to killing them besides preventing your own death. how you choose to interpret this set of circumstances is entirely up to you,  but the experience is very, ah, genuine and pure in being what it is. from what you're saying, you want to gamify that into some kind of 'left 4 dead online' - i don't think that is the same experience.

 

As far as PvE goes, wouldn't you consider EVERYTHING that isn't killing other players to be PvE? PvE is Player Vs. Environment. Isn't scavenging for food so you don't starve PvE? Keeping hydrated, navigating the landscape, treating sustained injuries, restoring vehicles, building bases and of course, killing zombies. If I wanted to play Left4Dead I'd play Left4Dead but when I think of PvE I don't think of Left4Dead. At least not in the context of DayZ. I'm looking for the immersive, story telling experience DayZ promises to be.

 

 

if we had something like a stamina system that took into account the amount of weight carried by an individual, not only would a wide variety of different-sized packs be viable, but a single individual player would find themselves less capable of carrying a kit for all of post-apocalyptic life's little occasions AND expect the same agility as a fresh spawn in jeans & t-shirt or another player operating in a group with delegated responsibilities.

 

 

I like this. Just not being able to move as quickly or being able to sprint only in short bursts due to the load you are carrying is a must implement IMO.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Jaybopper

[yessaul robinovich 42]

As far as PvE goes, wouldn't you consider EVERYTHING that isn't killing other players to be PvE? PvE is Player Vs. Environment. Isn't scavenging for food so you don't starve PvE? Keeping hydrated, navigating the landscape, treating sustained injuries, restoring vehicles, building bases and of course, killing zombies. If I wanted to play Left4Dead I'd play Left4Dead but when I think of PvE I don't think of Left4Dead. At least not in the context of DayZ. I'm looking for the immersive, story telling experience DayZ promises to be.

 

 

i don't make a distinction between the two outside of these types of conversations, when the term is used by others. and when it is, i use the term in its wider application. Typically the term PVE is used *exclusively and specifically* to mean "Barring Non-Consensual Player Vs Player Interaction" - when you use it to describe broadly everything, thats mostly semantics. When I see PVE, i read it as "NON-PVP. by the same token, I see a lot of the struggles a player faces during the course of normal play in dayz to be PVP even when they do not involve killing other people or combat whatsoever. You're competing over limited sources with other people. These resources are vital necessities and there is not enough for everyone, or anywhere close. The less availability - the fewer vestiges of first-world humanism remain. Sometimes, anyway - some also persist despite the harsh setting, which can be pretty life-affirming and memorable when it happens. What i mean to say is, there is no clear line between the two, its just survival by any means possible. 

 

See, i'm looking for storytelling also, but not the cinematic sort that involves designing the player's behaviour/responses through a scripted experience you're trying to give them. I'm looking to see how people behave under adverse conditions and whether the experience can be compelling enough for them - THE PEOPLE, not the 'characters' or avatars or whatever - to react without thinking. This is one of the few games where people can sometimes react as though what is happening is happening to them, not ones and zeroes somewhere on the internets. I think that is a very rare thing, and one worth fostering with more ideas and discussion about its future.. i guess we just disagree in the sort of experience we want. And dean seems perfectly fine with that, as he got hands-off about people modifying the original mod into all kinds of different things to suit their needs/desires/expectations..       but i'm talking about the definitive thing, the main thing. the dayz standalone experience a person gets to have when they wish to experience dayz itself. And if it doesn't have those kind of visceral moments, that connection and response that people can and do get out of this game..  why on earth would those people go on to play some different side-version of it?.. 

[Pendulum Effect 15]

Just want to explain myself a bit.

 

 

This is true but think about it, you only get out of this game what you put into it. If you spawn and think you're playing Left4Dead or FarCry3 you're going to get very bored very fast. The game can offer you excellent visual and audible stimulus but if you can't be bothered with it you're not going to enjoy it, thus you have to put yourself in your character's shoes. Allow yourself to be taken in. This is the role play I'm referring to.

 

 

 

As far as PvE goes, wouldn't you consider EVERYTHING that isn't killing other players to be PvE? PvE is Player Vs. Environment. Isn't scavenging for food so you don't starve PvE? Keeping hydrated, navigating the landscape, treating sustained injuries, restoring vehicles, building bases and of course, killing zombies. If I wanted to play Left4Dead I'd play Left4Dead but when I think of PvE I don't think of Left4Dead. At least not in the context of DayZ. I'm looking for the immersive, story telling experience DayZ promises to be.

 

 

This is the kind of PvE that I'm referring to. As it stands right now, zombies pose no threat and you feel no repercussions for firing a loud weapon in the confines of a town. You should fight the dead and fear the living, but it doesn't mean you that the environment and the zombies in large groups can't be equally frightening. Sure, this isn't meant to be a Left4Dead zombie killing spree but technically you could play it that way if you wished (if there were zombies to kill). The notion that the inclusion of these areas would eliminate or ruin PvP is not true by any stretch of the imagination, due to their nature. It could form 3 way wars, where two factions inhabit the island at one time but must also contend with all of the zombies. Do they open fire, ignore each other or do they team up? This is eventually going to be a part of the game by design, even in smaller towns. It adds tensions and uncertainty to an otherwise concrete fact: the two groups will kill each other because they know that it's likely that the others will kill them. The main goal is to survive in this game and currently the environment just doesn't pose enough of a challenge. You should have a greater and greater risks and rewards system and more importantly a better balance of what might kill you; zombies, disease, exposure, hunger, thirst, injury and people. You must brave all of these, tenfold, when you go to the zombie island. It's not changing the way the game plays, but it gives you a higher risk/reward quotient to work with.

[Pendulum Effect 15]

#Doublepost. :(

Edited January 9, 2014 by Pendulum Effect

[Richard Brooke 1]

This is the kind of PvE that I'm referring to. As it stands right now, zombies pose no threat and you feel no repercussions for firing a loud weapon in the confines of a town. You should fight the dead and fear the living, but it doesn't mean you that the environment and the zombies in large groups can't be equally frightening. Sure, this isn't meant to be a Left4Dead zombie killing spree but technically you could play it that way if you wished (if there were zombies to kill). The notion that the inclusion of these areas would eliminate or ruin PvP is not true by any stretch of the imagination, due to their nature. It could form 3 way wars, where two factions inhabit the island at one time but must also contend with all of the zombies. Do they open fire, ignore each other or do they team up? This is eventually going to be a part of the game by design, even in smaller towns. It adds tensions and uncertainty to an otherwise concrete fact: the two groups will kill each other because they know that it's likely that the others will kill them. The main goal is to survive in this game and currently the environment just doesn't pose enough of a challenge. You should have a greater and greater risks and rewards system and more importantly a better balance of what might kill you; zombies, disease, exposure, hunger, thirst, injury and people. You must brave all of these, tenfold, when you go to the zombie island. It's not changing the way the game plays, but it gives you a higher risk/reward quotient to work with.

 

This really isn't changing the dynamic of the vision of the game that Rocket wants in the end. It just adds more places and is that really a bad thing? Just makes things more varied.