Why aren't PvE servers allowed?

[Space Milk 195]

I'm failing to see the difference between a PvP enabled server, a PvP server, and a normal server

 

I don't think I've ever joined a server where I've been kicked for not engaging someone like how PvE servers want to kick you for killing someone.

PVP enabled: ALL SERVERS

PVP server: Server focused on PVP

Normal server: Everyday server that is not specifically for PVP or PVE.

[kazeen 15]

It is not a pve game... 

[wgaf 251]

Moral right?  isn't it technically a legal right?

 

It probably is, but laws vary from place to place. 

 

It is a moral right in all times and places. 

 

It speaks to people's moral character. 

Edited January 10, 2014 by HCHellCaptain

[Bubbajones 238]

This is such a idiotic statement. You can choose to play PvE, Trading, PvP, or normal. So when people CHOOSE to play PvE they have the right to complain how they are restricting them?

 

 

PVE only on a hive that also has people that have to fight other players for their loot is wrong and against the rules.

 

its like being allowed to stop at walmart to stock up  before going to live in ethiopia... not fair to the rest of the fly swatters.

 

once they have private hives, your pve servers wont affect loot in regular servers and you can cumbayah all you want in a field of daisies.

 

For now IN ALPHA, you follow the regular rules.

[Ineedscoffee 464]

It is not a pve game...

Yet nowhere does it flat out advertise itself as a pvp game

[melancholymastermind 33]

PVE only on a hive that also has people that have to fight other players for their loot is wrong and against the rules.

 

its like being allowed to stop at walmart to stock up  before going to live in ethiopia... not fair to the rest of the fly swatters.

 

once they have private hives, your pve servers wont affect loot in regular servers and you can cumbayah all you want in a field of daisies.

 

For now IN ALPHA, you follow the regular rules.

 

Why cant everyone else have this opinion.  I really cannot see how a private hive PvE server is going to destroy the game and the vision of Dean.  Its not like suddenly every single server online will have no choice but to also switch to PvE because of one private hive PvE server or even 10 private hive PvE servers

Edited January 10, 2014 by TemplarGFX

[Bubbajones 238]

Why cant everyone else have this opinion.  I really cannot see how a private hive PvE server is going to destroy the game and the vision of Dean.  Its not like suddenly every single server online will have no choice but to also switch to PvE because of one private hive PvE server or even 10 private hive PvE servers

 

just to clarify. i dont care either way, i am just saying as long as there is only one hive, there are no separate rule-sets. Once hives can be private and loot isnt transferable across "difficulty levels", each individual is free to choose their server private rules.

 

They can have a 40-man circlejerk for all i care.

[kazeen 15]

Yet nowhere does it flat out advertise itself as a pvp game

 

You have a point also.

 

Anyways cannot have pve servers till the private hives/servers are made. Or you could just run around on a pve server gearing up and ghosting into a pvp server killing people and going back to the pve server if you are outmatched. Or using it to get a better position on the people you are fighting on the pvp server. 

[elf cakes 559]

PvE servers destroy Rocket's vision of the game. It's not even DayZ anymore.

I like to imagine it's to protect the good name of DayZ by preventing it from being turned into a loot-collecting circle jerk.

as opposed to it being a clan war circle-jerk?

[wgaf 251]

Anarchy is just another word for "clan wars."

 

That's rocket's vision, anarchy. 

[melancholymastermind 33]

just to clarify. i dont care either way, i am just saying as long as there is only one hive, there are no separate rule-sets. Once hives can be private and loot isnt transferable across "difficulty levels", each individual is free to choose their server private rules.

 

They can have a 40-man circlejerk for all i care.

 

Exactly, because it wont effect you.  Read the comments in this thread, people are talking about permanently preventing this even after private hives come out.  Why? because they have this delusion that it is going to ruin the game on servers outside of the private hive. I don't know how, and none have given an explanation. they just say it and say it loudly

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Exactly, because it wont effect you.  Read the comments in this thread, people are talking about permanently preventing this even after private hives come out.  Why? because they have this delusion that it is going to ruin the game on servers outside of the private hive. I don't know how, and none have given an explanation. they just say it and say it loudly

But what's wrong with putting everyone under the same ruleset?

[Bubbajones 238]

Exactly, because it wont effect you.  Read the comments in this thread, people are talking about permanently preventing this even after private hives come out.  Why? because they have this delusion that it is going to ruin the game on servers outside of the private hive. I don't know how, and none have given an explanation. they just say it and say it loudly

 

it hasn't affected the mod after two years, why would it affect the SA?

 

the only thing that killed the mod was hacking - period. otherwise you would see many more public servers than you see today.

 

private hives can be whatever the person playing (and paying) wants - if you don't like the rule-set - don't go there.

 

if, in the next year 99% of all dayz servers being paid for by players are private lovefests and 10 million people are performing oral sex on each other behind no-pvp rulesets, then maybe someone was wrong about what dayz should be.

 

just saying

Edited January 10, 2014 by Bubbajones

[Ineedscoffee 464]

it hasn't affected the mod after two years, why would it affect the SA?

 

the only thing that killed the mod was hacking - period. otherwise you would see many more public servers than you see today.

 

private hives can be whatever the person playing wants - if you don't like the rule-set - don't go there.

 

if, in the next year 99% of all dayz servers being paid for by players are private lovefests and 10 million people are performing oral sex on each other behind no-pvp rulesets, then maybe someone was wrong about what dayz should be.

 

just saying

Sometimes you really just need those beans opened.......pve and pvp alike........

[libertine 351]

Exactly, and Rocket and the other developers have a moral right to enforce their vision of the game, since it is their property and they created it. 

 

People who violate their moral rights are wrongdoers. They're liars as well, given that they're people who can't be trusted to keep their word. 

Moral right? You've got to be joking. Most of humanities ideas about [not] "copying" and modifying are completely EGO based. Moral my ass. They exchanged money btw for a property they now own and they can have respect for Rockets desires while standing up for their own. Look at you, praising the status quo because it fits your needs, but you'd be complaining too if it didn't. BTW, i don't want to see a single complaint from you about anything that deviates from Rockets vision, you'd be violating and possibly endangering Rockets vision, nay his soul!

 

How about no mods for Skyrim/Stalker/Halflife/[Arma 2] because the developers want to enforce their vision of the game...

 

I've been saying it for a long time, if i have to keep following the "directors vision" for movies and games, i may not be a movie goer or gamer for much longer...

 

It is not a pve game... 

.and Skyrim wasn't a jumping of cliff game and Arma2 wasn't a zombie game and on and on and on and on and on. It did start out 100% PvE did it not?

 

 

But what's wrong with putting everyone under the same ruleset?

For the same reason people play different games than others. For alpha testing, if its needed (server populatons get a little low at night here) then so be it.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Thane

[libertine 351]

oops

Edited January 10, 2014 by Thane

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

They exchanged money btw for a property they now own

 

No, they didn't; that is absolutely not how software works and I'm sure you know that full well. They exchanged money for the right to use the software according to terms and conditions.

 

They have no right to the source used to create the software, nor do they attain the right to modify the software as they see fit.

 

 

Moral right? You've got to be joking.

 

Yes, it's totally a joke man. There's absolutely no moral component at all in the concept of someone owning the things they create or having the ability to decide how they're viewed, used or distributed. It's all about "EGO." What?

 

 

How about no mods for Skyrim/Stalker/Halflife/[Arma 2] because the developers want to enforce their vision of the game...

 

But... that wasn't their vision of the game. Obviously. What kind of analogy is that? All of those developers specifically supported modding of the software, so it obviously wasn't against their vision. What are you trying to argue here?

 

 

I've been saying it for a long time, if i have to keep following the "directors vision" for movies and games, i may not be a movie goer or gamer for much longer..

 

Uhh, how exactly do you NOT follow a director's vision for a movie? Close your eyes and plug your ears during the movie? Seriously, what are you even talking about? You watch the movie they made. That's it. You don't get to run up into the projection booth and go "No! I hated that last scene. Let me make some edits and re-run it; I think everyone will agree my version is better!"

[wgaf 251]

Moral right? You've got to be joking. Most of humanities ideas about [not] "copying" and modifying are completely EGO based. Moral my ass. They exchanged money btw for a property they now own and they can have respect for Rockets desires while standing up for their own. Look at you, praising the status quo because it fits your needs, but you'd be complaining too if it didn't. BTW, i don't want to see a single complaint from you about anything that deviates from Rockets vision, you'd be violating and possibly endangering Rockets vision, nay his soul!

 

How about no mods for Skyrim/Stalker/Halflife/[Arma 2] because the developers want to enforce their vision of the game...

 

I've been saying it for a long time, if i have to keep following the "directors vision" for movies and games, i may not be a movie goer or gamer for much longer...

 

 

 

 

You're wrong enough that if this weren't penny ante video games, but something with more at stake financially, you could be put into penury or even go to jail because of the wrongdoing your mistakes lead you to. 

You don't own anything besides a license to use the game when you buy it. When you pay, you receive a license in consideration, subject to terms to which you agree and are morally bound by honesty to uphold. 

 

The fact that you can get away with certain wrongdoings doesn't make them right. 

 

Skyrim's owners gave people permission to make mods for it. That's their moral right, just the same. 

Edited January 10, 2014 by HCHellCaptain

[melancholymastermind 33]

But... that wasn't their vision of the game. Obviously. What kind of analogy is that? All of those developers specifically supported modding of the software, so it obviously wasn't against their vision. What are you trying to argue here?

 

Steam Game Sale Page :

 

Currently planned key future features are:

 

• Playable vehicles
• Wide variety of native animal life
• Player created constructions in the environment
• Extensive interactions with the environment and crafting options
• Streamlined user actions and interface
• Upgraded graphics and physics engine (including ragdoll, etc.)
• Control and animations expanded and improved for fluidity
• Support of user mods

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

 

• Support of user mods

 

Thanks mate. But that doesn't really say anything about what kind of mods they intend to support.

 

Again, the fact that they expressly forbid PvE servers in the hosting rules kind of implies that PvE servers are not part of their plan for supported mods.

[wgaf 251]

A pve server is vandalism of dayz. 

[melancholymastermind 33]

Thanks mate. But that doesn't really say anything about what kind of mods they intend to support.

 

Again, the fact that they expressly forbid PvE servers in the hosting rules kind of implies that PvE servers are not part of their plan for supported mods.

 

PvE servers are not allowed at the moment because there is no way to separate them from the rest of the servers, helping to continue to server hopping culture that is building.   That is why its expressly forbidden in server hosting at this stage.

[Irenicus (DayZ) 289]

Simply because it is not how DayZ was designed. Other players are the biggest threat in this game, take that away and it becomes pointless.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

That is why its expressly forbidden in server hosting at this stage.

 

If that's what you want to believe, okay. I think we will have to agree to disagree and see how the game matures.

[melancholymastermind 33]

Simply because it is not how DayZ was designed. Other players are the biggest threat in this game, take that away and it becomes pointless.

 

 

In your opinion it becomes pointless.  If it was pointless then there would be no one asking for it.  Just because you cannot see the enjoyment to be had doesn't mean others will not and do not.