The one and only Anti-PVP/PvP Discussion thread! Whine/discuss here!

[Hillbilly (DayZ) 8]

But pure PVE players tend to want elements in the game stifled or taken away' date=' whereas PVP players tend to want things added, this is where the tension comes from.

[/quote']

I have to disagree. That statement may be true sometimes, but now the status quo actually favours pvp players a bit more than PVE. Right now I usually play in a sizeable or small group and we have plenty of good gear. Even now I rarely actually get killed by a player (mostly glitches or a zombie) and I can defend myself when I need to.

The thing is PVP players they tend to want to not only keep the game as difficult as it is (its pretty noob unfriendly), they would love to add (more like take away) things in the game that would make it annoying to many players. At the same time though PVE players attack the wrong issues half the time.

Honestly the changes to the game I've seen have not necessarily been in favor of PVE players. Those who seem to want the game to become more difficult and just plainly more unfriendly to new players appear to have more of a say. I may easily be wrong and rocket could actually come out with some awesome features that encourages PVE gameplay, but it may not happen.

I don't actually want PVP gameplay to be discouraged, but at the same time PVE is risky as hell for players. Many will shoot on sight due to distrust. Some are friendly when in a group or if they have no weapon, but others will fear you will take their shit since they are assuming you are a asshole bandit.

[Quadg 5]

This thread is no longer about PVP v PVE....

This thread is about Grognard Vs Newb

As this is an Alpha for a game in development, the input of new players is important. If you want the game to do well.

Grognards face it, as it’s an alpha it’s going to change drastically.

Newbs, i understand your pain, you came here expecting to survive the zombie apocalypse, instead your meat on a rednecks hunting preserve...

Kind of annoying, like falling for spam :rolleyes: “why cant they go shoot each other in any other of a million FPS?”

It’s going to be interesting to see if Rocket can get Survivors and hunters of long pig, to play together for any length of time.

Maybe change the zombie motif to aliens? Could add in all kinds of wacky stuff then... And not annoy the zombie grognards who feel like they have been “sold” a lie. those that stay have become bitter and twisted PvPers :D

There will always be loners avoiding everybody though.. usually killing because they are cornered.. using direct comm over a mike.

Its just harder and more fun that way :) i actually therefore like the PVP and not knowing how someone will react when you go “no.no.no.no.no.no.no.no.no.no.no.no.no” at them..

Just hate the exploits ===hopping, i hate hopping.. its so tempting so pisses me off that i resist (most of the time) and others don’t...:@ I do think out of game VOIP is an exploit, have you used a real radio? They are crap and mobile phones would not work.. and meta gaming... no internet folks in game... if it’s in the game its fine. If its not then its an exploit/cheat..

Hackers are like bad weather.. rare but annoying to everyone, rocket keep up the good fight against them!

[Bucket (DayZ) 0]

Just hate the exploits ===hopping' date=' i hate hopping.. its so tempting so pisses me off that i resist (most of the time) and others don’t...:@ I do think out of game VOIP is an exploit, have you used a real radio? They are crap and mobile phones would not work.. and meta gaming... no internet folks in game... if it’s in the game its fine. If its not then its an exploit/cheat..

[/quote']

Agreed. I have a small group of friends or friends of friends that I've played with, and when we do we use VOIP. However, due to jobs/kids we rarely get to play together, so I lone-wolf the vast majority of the time. I love the IDEA of running into a complete stranger, communicating only via direct channel, teaming up and trying to survive together. Hasn't happened for me yet, regrettably, as all of my attempts have ended either in being shot at or peaceful meetings where the other guy is too paranoid to group up with a stranger and moves on. Too bad. Finding people on the forums to play with is fine and all, but it's also immersion-breaking so I've resisted doing it.

I'm definitely one of the people who thinks there's too much PVP in this game, but I'm willing to try non-punitive measures first, such as removing the in-combat disconnect and maybe adding some PVE objectives/dynamic events. Hopefully, those kinds of things are high on the "to do" list.

[Powermolch 3]

There is not PvE or PvP. Every Player who wants to PvP is doing PvE at the same amount.

PvE means Player vs. Environment. PvP players break legs, have to eat, drink, bleed, get shocked, get cold, get infected, have to find loot & Equipment, get attacked by Zombies as every PvE Player.

The Game is the whole Package. You can't ignore one aspect of it. Zombies are no real threat. The threat is if I aggro a zombie, I'll have to shoot him and give my Position away to other players in a large radius. Its PvP in a harsh Environment and goal Nr1 is "Stay Alive".

In other shooter games, suiciding into 3 players and taking them with you will give you a 3:1 on your Score Table. In DayZ it will give you a large 0 to your scoretable and take your gear away.

[Mr Muggles 19]

Does anyone actually die from Zombie attacks anymore?!?!?!

For gods sake can something be done about this horrible bandit bias in this game

[Celetrontmm 5]

You can make PvP less.. what's the word... useful? * beneficial*

Have a humanity system, have a random % chance that a % of a dead person's stuff dissapears

Screw being realistic, nobody else is being realistic; at least a lot of people =\

---

Killing a survivor should give you an effect that lasts 2 hours, logging out increases the time by 10 minutes.

--The effect:

-You need food/water more often

-Zombies are more attracted to you; you make more noise

-You get slightly less/worse loot

-VERY distinct, easy to see from medium range clothes (VERY little blending)

-Penis size increase ~2 inches (3 if you're playing with friends; 4 if you're recording)

---

You should spawn w/ a melee weapon which takes 2 hits to kill zombies aswell

Axes are so common that it wouldn't make a difference

---

I think the range for the close range char/voip (I think it is called voip, people talking)

Should be more than doubled, the other day I could barely hear someone from ~5m

[mindtunnel 0]

Get rid of tents. If there's no way for people to save gear' date=' they'll be a lot more careful, and a lot less inclined to get in to dangerous situations, ie: attacking other players willy-nilly).

Also, there needs to be some way of making a player potentially more valuable than the contents of their backpack. I don't know how you go about emphasising that, but it would greatly help.

[/quote']

Maybe a L4D approach where there are special zombies that (when your alone) will destroy you. Maybe just certain environmental tasks that require more than one person. This should help entice players to work together.

[Cormac McCarthy 15]

NONNONONONO i dont want to team up, i play alone ONLY at night, because i work, and have to be quiet as to not wake up my wife. so no, fuck that thank you. i should not get killed for being alone. theres plenty of reasons as to why i would be better off alone in the zombie apocalypse anyway.

[septuscap 42]

PvE gameplay very rarely negatively impacts PvP gameplay much

PvE players harm PvP gameplay by coming onto FORUMS and crying for changes so they die less. This happens in EVERY single game with PvP and PvE components' date=' and it's ruined numerous PvP games.

The PvE components in a sandbox game are a HUGE driver for PvP. They're what creates the dynamic PvP environment. But inevitably, some one who just wants the PvE components comes along and cries about the bad PvP components ruining their playtime.

There is not a SINGLE complaint made by PvE players that can't be addressed by friendlies themselves. Saturate a couple of servers with friendlies via a steam group, forum thread, whatever, so you're more likely to run into a survivor than a bandit. Go make a player city for trade, safety, intel exchange, meeting people, etc. Join a clan of friendlies.

Approach a stranger while your buddy provides overwatch to cover you (don't just run around yelling "FRIENDLIES???" you fucking moron). Approach a stranger as a GROUP so he's less likely to open fire. REMEMBER that you still run the risk of this stranger giving your location away to his buddies and getting ambushed. PLAN ACCORDINGLY.

PvE games have trained you to do nothing but click on a rock 1 million times to achieve some accomplishment. STOP BEING WORTHLESS.

[Squatthrust 3]

Saturate a couple of servers with friendlies via a steam group' date=' forum thread, whatever, so you're more likely to run into a survivor than a bandit.

[/quote']

Would be a good idea, but the problem is that bandits also see those, and there's nothing to stop the inevitable wave of griefers rushing in to said server to collect on the rich bounty of 'carebear tears'.

Go make a player city for trade' date=' safety, intel exchange, meeting people, etc. Join a clan of friendlies.

[/quote']

Until groups of bandits server hop their way inside over and over until the friendlies don't have enough resources to continue.

Approach a stranger while your buddy provides overwatch to cover you (don't just run around yelling "FRIENDLIES???" you fucking moron). Approach a stranger as a GROUP so he's less likely to open fire. REMEMBER that you still run the risk of this stranger giving your location away to his buddies and getting ambushed. PLAN ACCORDINGLY.

And what's to stop him from just shooting you in the face? Sure, logic dictates that one person doesn't stand much of a chance against a group, but paranoid people aren't renowned for their logic. There's just not any reason to trust a stranger or even a group of strangers.

[septuscap 42]

Would be a good idea' date=' but the problem is that bandits also see those, and there's nothing to stop the inevitable wave of griefers rushing in to said server to collect on the rich bounty of 'carebear tears'. [/quote']

By that logic it's impossible to make a clan b/c you'd constantly be killed by traitors joining your clan and giving away your position!

If you can't figure out how to send a message to various friendly clans without griefers seeing the message, it's no wonder you fail.

Until groups of bandits server hop their way inside over and over until the friendlies don't have enough resources to continue.

Rule: you must enter the city with gun in pack. Anyone logging inside the city "walls" with a gun out will be killed before they finish loading.

BRILLIANT.

And what's to stop him from just shooting you in the face? Sure' date=' logic dictates that one person doesn't stand much of a chance against a group, but paranoid people aren't renowned for their logic. There's just not any reason to trust a stranger or even a group of strangers.

[/quote']

The point is you have instant revenge on the guy (and friends who will pick up your gear and his), and know not to trust the guy in the future.

You don't have to talk to him face to face either, keep a wall between you and him until you feel he can be trusted (or can't be and snipe him).

STAY IN CONTROL.

[Squatthrust 3]

By that logic it's impossible to make a clan b/c you'd constantly be killed by traitors joining your clan and giving away your position!

If you can't figure out how to send a message to various friendly clans without griefers seeing the message' date=' it's no wonder you fail.

[/quote']

No, it's by that logic that most clans have trial periods, i.e. not giving a new person the ability to really mess things up (camp/vehicle locations, certain TS channel passwords, etc.) until they prove that they can be trusted.

Rule: you must enter the city with gun in pack. Anyone logging inside the city "walls" with a gun out will be killed before they finish loading.

How would you even police that? Have guards checking every nook and cranny of the town constantly while it's in operation' date=' while at the same time watching for outside attack/snipers? Keeping in mind that more people = more difficulty coordinating, it just doesn't seem viable. Not to mention the absurdity of having to police exploits.

The point is you have instant revenge on the guy (and friends who will pick up your gear and his), and know not to trust the guy in the future.

You don't have to talk to him face to face either, keep a wall between you and him until you feel he can be trusted (or can't be and snipe him).

STAY IN CONTROL.

I suppose I can't really argue against the idea that you'd have instant revenge. I just can't honestly see someone cooperating in that situation, not with the mod and the community as it is now.

As to knowing that he can't be trusted, how would you know that? The only way to really identify some random stranger is by voice, and that assumes he uses direct chat. Anyone can change their name and appearance in game at will, and if a stranger shares his out of game info with you (Steam, Skype, TS), odds are he wouldn't shoot you in the face immediately after.

[Julia_Shafer 18]

this about bandit skins I cant get behind is I murder people occasionally because for the most part its them or me, and I usually win. So what happens if I get a bandit skin hum? It lasts forever because I defended myself or my friend? ya screw off lol.

[funionz 7]

But pure PVE players tend to want elements in the game stifled or taken away' date=' whereas PVP players tend to want things added, this is where the tension comes from.

[/quote']

I have to disagree. That statement may be true sometimes, but now the status quo actually favours pvp players a bit more than PVE. Right now I usually play in a sizeable or small group and we have plenty of good gear. Even now I rarely actually get killed by a player (mostly glitches or a zombie) and I can defend myself when I need to.

The thing is PVP players they tend to want to not only keep the game as difficult as it is (its pretty noob unfriendly), they would love to add (more like take away) things in the game that would make it annoying to many players. At the same time though PVE players attack the wrong issues half the time.

I think you kinda reinforced my point there

---

this about bandit skins I cant get behind is I murder people occasionally because for the most part its them or me' date=' and I usually win. So what happens if I get a bandit skin hum? It lasts forever because I defended myself or my friend? ya screw off lol.

[/quote']

..........what?

[Kageru 18]

PvE gameplay very rarely negatively impacts PvP gameplay much

PvE games have trained you to do nothing but click on a rock 1 million times to achieve some accomplishment. STOP BEING WORTHLESS.

PvP players are just as bad' date=' with things like the above making it clear that anyone taking issue with their gameplay choice is simply bad, weak, doing it wrong and deserves to be hunted down unless they learn to play it as a PvP game. They do it in Eve too, although they realised after a while the empire (PvE players) generate most of the money that kept the game going.

The degree to which PvP influences the game is entirely a design decision. You make it punitive for people who are only casual or not that interested in PvP and over time those people will stop playing. You reduce PvP to nothing the PvP players will leave. And most players are somewhere within the PvE / PvP extreme, wanting a bit of both.

Whatever though, the game is currently highly pro-PvP and rocket will do what he does.

I was watching the walking dead trailers on steam though (Walking Dead and wonder how many people see the zombie apocalypse as being like that. Grinding psychological pressure of knowing the worlds gone to shit, people are losing it and trying just to survive is a challenge.

[septuscap 42]

PvP players are just as bad' date=' with things like the above making it clear that anyone taking issue with their gameplay choice is simply bad, weak, doing it wrong and deserves to be hunted down unless they learn to play it as a PvP game. They do it in Eve too, although they realised after a while the empire (PvE players) generate most of the money that kept the game going.

[/quote']

Way to take a single line out of context. I was saying PvE players have done nothing to create the style of play they want (and went on to describe some EASY ways to do it). You're so used to having to do nothing that you're not even putting 0.00001% of the planning into the game that PvP players are.

[Hillbilly (DayZ) 8]

I think you kinda reinforced my point there

You ignored what I put in parenthesis and a previous comment showing that PVP players can at times simply want to keep the game as it is. I never said PVP players always do one thing or the other' date=' but usually they may want to keep the status quo or possibly add things that would simply make the game far more unfriendly to new players.

Of course using the examples of PVP vs PVE isn't accurate since many PVP players play in groups. Its more of a difference between players who want the game to become even more difficult (even though they have a shit load of equipment and teammates) and those who would like things added to the game to encourage PVE play and make it a bit more friendly to newer players.

I'm not exactly sure why you think PVE players want the game to stay the same. Many try and come up with options and fun things that can encourage it. Some of these proposals can easily promote both PVE and PVP. For example some people would like the ability to take over a small town and make a base. The only way to hold it is to have a good team, but the only way to take it from another group is if you can get into a good team.

[hr']

Way to take a single line out of context. I was saying PvE players have done nothing to create the style of play they want (and went on to describe some EASY ways to do it). You're so used to having to do nothing that you're not even putting 0.00001% of the planning into the game that PvP players are.

PVP players play in groups a lot and many PVE players actually do try and make the game more fun. The problem is the newer players who simply are joining a game that is far more harsher to anyone who simply wants to meet up with a random survivor and be friendly. Those are the majority of the complaints and honestly those can be fixed easily.

Give more incentives for PVE play that can easily override the short term benefits of banditry. The incentives for PVE play can easily enhance PVP.

[Strunge 0]

Anyone got a M4A1 SD, i wanna trade it for a MP5SD and M4A3 CCO :)

[funionz 7]

I think you kinda reinforced my point there

but usually they may want to keep the status quo or possibly add things that would simply make the game far more unfriendly to new players.

This was my point exactly' date=' PVE wants to take, PVP wants to add.

I'm not exactly sure why you think PVE players want the game to stay the same.

We don't think that, we think the complete opposite.

[Hillbilly (DayZ) 8]

This was my point exactly' date=' PVE wants to take, PVP wants to add.

[/quote']

So your point was also that PVP players also can at times want to keep the status quo? That isn't good at all for something in its alpha stage.

We don't think that, we think the complete opposite.

I've provided examples that shows how pve players want to actually add things to the game that in general improves both the gameplay experience for both PVP and PVE. Hell simply going to Day Z suggestions thread and looking at a few of those pretty much proves my point.

Again PVP players are also many of the people who work in groups and will support features that can easily hurt those who do not have groups that can help them survive.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Really trying to avoid this thread and its endlessly circular arguments, but you people ranting on and on about "PvP players" and "PvE players" are arguing about a game that doesn't exist.

DayZ players are necessarily both - and the vast majority of DayZ players do both. The game is about PvE and PvP. You cannot PvP effectively without also dealing with PvE aspects - and you can't be effective in PvE if you're not willing to PvP at least once in awhile.

For the first time in a really long time, the P's are now part of the E. This is a good thing. Don't fight it. Embrace it. Let it flourish.

[teih 36]

"There is no solution to the "pvp" of this game"

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I understand that the creators of DayZ wants this game to feel as real as possible, within reason. The problem though is that one of the CORE elements of real life can never make its way into games: real life consequences.

You can do whatever you want and it won't affect your life, and because of that, realistic zombie survival can never be achieved.

In real life people would not be killing every stranger they see. It makes no sense what so ever, for different reasons. Humans would band together, form tribe-like societys and work as a team to overcome the challenges ahead. That's how we are designed as a species.

However, in a video game this is not the case.

Since the fear of long term consequences do not apply, and compassion, guilt and other aspects that would prevent you from pulling the trigger are not relevant at all, some game mechanics just fall flat.

Currently DayZ is nothing but a giant free for all, where noone trusts anyone. I think this happened when you could no longer see the difference between a survivor and a murderer (the removal of the bandit skin).

Do most people WANT to kill everyone in sight? I doubt it. We simply have no choice.

If you choose to wait and see if someone is friendly, you'll just take a bullet to the head. It's shoot first or die. The game forces you to become a murderer.

SOLUTION:

1:

Bring back the bandit skins. It will make us able to know when we are dealing with a murderer, and when we are dealing with a fellow survivor. It will bring back some of the group mentality that made this game so much fun. Yes, it's not "realistic" to dress up like a bandit, but the way it is now is FAR more unrealistic.

or 2:

Make a class like system: bandits vs survivors. Survivors can not kill other survivors without suffering some sort of penalty; however, they can kill bandits without getting the "murder" stat.

Bandits; however, can kill anyone, even eachother.

This game needs an artificial reason to group up with other people than your real life friends if it is in any way going to simulate a real life zombie apocalypse. It's simply not as fun anymore as it used to be.

[IDex (DayZ) 4]

In REAL LIFE people would not be killing every stranger they see. It makes no sense what so ever' date=' for different reasons. Humans would band together, form tribe-like societys and work as a team to overcome the challenges ahead. That's how we are designed as a species.[/quote']

No. You were either born into the tribe or killed. There was no such thing as "forming" one. In real apocalyptic situation it could quickly turn into bloodshed. Sure there could be little groups of family and friends but anything beyond that would fall under "it's either us or them" and people would probably kill just to stay on the safe side.

There are many studies about how people behave in hostile, brutal and dangerous environment. People's sense of morality fades to the point of them doing needless evil. See any war, broken societal break down or even a modern slaughter house and you can see these reactions. It's a psychological coping mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coping_(psychology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

So please stop saying "in real life people wouldn't kill/couldn't pull the trigger" and other BS to justify anti-pvp suggestions in terms of realism.

[Squatthrust 3]

No. You were either born into the tribe or killed. There was no such thing as "forming" one.

So how do those tribes form in the first place? They couldn't possibly be just made up of family because if it was only family there's no way there would be a diversified enough gene pool to sustain the human population.

Sure there could be little groups of family and friends but anything beyond that would fall under "it's either us or them" and people would probably kill just to stay on the safe side.

Just staying with family and friends isn't a good option for survival. There's strength in numbers' date=' and anyone in a real scenario would realize this. Now that you mention psychology, there's a whole host of psychological mechanisms in place to prevent killing of other humans. There's a reason murder is not only illegal, but socially taboo. There's a reason people have had a chance to form societies, humans are fundamentally social creatures, there's no getting around that. People don't just kill for fun unless there's something horribly wrong with them.

There are many studies about how people behave in hostile, brutal and dangerous environment. People's sense of morality fades to the point of them doing needless evil. See any war, broken societal break down or even a modern slaughter house and you can see these reactions. It's a psychological coping mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coping_(psychology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Yet you haven't mentioned any of those studies? The only study you are referencing, The Stanford Prison Experiment, is not even remotely close to a survival scenario, nor does it support your point. What it actually was is proof of the concept of deindividualization, or the idea that humans take on a kind of 'group morality' when they lose their self-awareness and sense of individual responsibility. So rather than behaving as they would as an individual, they take on the dynamic of the group, regardless of what that group is. The guards took on guard roles, forgetting their individual roles as participants in a research study, but the inmates also took on their roles as inmates, willingly subjecting themselves to abuse all the while not trying to stop the study.

As for cognitive dissonance and coping mechanism, if anything they refute your point. The murder taboo is something that's fundamental to human psychology, as it is with most every other animal. So killing when it is not necessary for an individuals survival would create the grief and anxiety of cognitive dissonance because it's a conflict with the murder taboo. Coping mechanisms are what mitigate this dissonance. It's the reason soldiers in war refer to their enemy not by name, but by a simple 'them'. Nonetheless, murder does affect people negatively. Look at the suicide rates of Vietnam war veterans (you can check out http://www.suicidewall.com/ for good statistics on the subject)

But honestly, I don't even know why I should have to explain this to you, it should be painfully obvious that people don't kill other people for ridiculous reasons. The proof is that I can walk down the street, go to the grocery store, go see a movie. The fact that society exists is evident that even in the survival scenarios that our ancestors had to face, people didn't just randomly slaughter other humans. They fought only when it aided in their survival, which meant mostly tribe vs. tribe competition, not mindless rampages.

So stop trying to say everyone would become mindless, maniacal, remorseless killers as soon as the dead started running around.

[phienyx 14]

I am not anti pvp. I am anti murder with absolutely no consequence. This allows for much more "preying" behavior than would ever occur in real life. Many of those who are all epeen-ho about pvp and bad mouth anyone who wants to balance things out simply want a game that allows them to power trip over other players. Many don't even care about the experience the game is attempting to portray. These are usually the same people that will have that same attitude no matter what game they go into. Their goal is to inflict as much grief on others via the internet as possible. Anything that even seems like it will restrict them from doing this will induce an internet tough-guy rage and they are against it.

This problem is inherent of all internet interaction and unfortunately does need some sort of artificial mechanic to balance things out.