Allow Server Configurable Pve Only

[KerrSG1 113]

PvE servers will suck the meaning out of the game

having the PvP in the game makes it what it is

 

It 'sucks the meaning out' to you.  Not everyone.  Not everyone wants to play the way you do, and no one is suggesting you be forced the play the way they want you to play.

[dekartz 315]

And I pointed out 'nice people' are already leaving the game because of the griefing and KOS of the game as is.  PVE would allow them to stay, and there would likely be inevitable cross over as people play on PVP as well, but would rather stick to PVE on the whole.

And they're welcome to leave and play other games. That doesn't really necessitate a change. There are plenty of people "nice" and "griefer" who still play the game actively. It's the same as someone finding out that Final Fantasy or Battlefield isn't the game for them. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

[KerrSG1 113]

Also, the burden of proof is on you sir. We don't have to prove why there shouldn't be PVE servers, because there already are none, you have to prove why there should be.

 

The proof is in the rampant complaints of KOS and other behavior, and people not wanting to play the game with the kind of people who are ruining the game for others.

Edited January 30, 2014 by KerrSG1

[dekartz 315]

The proof is in the rampant complaints of KOS and other behavior, and people not wanting to play the game with the kind of people who are ruining the game for others.

Yet the game is suffering from no loss of population or popularity. What you have is a vocal minority.

[KerrSG1 113]

And they're welcome to leave and play other games. That doesn't really necessitate a change. There are plenty of people "nice" and "griefer" who still play the game actively. It's the same as someone finding out that Final Fantasy or Battlefield isn't the game for them. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

I pointed out before, this is still a business.  This isn't a 'mod' of a game people have already bought.  The purpose is sales, you must make a profit to keep a game going and develop it.  The reputation this game is already getting is going to reduce it's sales and keep people interested in more than griefing from it.

 

Constant PVP Killings in Game

http://www.dorkly.com/comic/58310/dayz-ed-and-confused

Perfect Murder Simulator Game

http://www.thedailydigest.org/2014/01/29/zombie-apocalypse-pc-game-a-perfect-murder-simulator/

[dekartz 315]

But the game had a reputation for constant PVP before it was released (Back in the days of the Mod) and still sold over a million copies. As an unfinished Alpha no-less.

[KerrSG1 113]

Absolutely, but a million copies in a world of 7 billion is a drop in the bucket.  Increased sales come from increased player base.  PVE would capture the entire spectrum of players interested.

[dekartz 315]

In a world of seven billion, many of which are without internet, some of which the game isn't localized for, and so-on. Please. Try again. Also, a million copies for an unfinished game is pretty damn spectacular

 

 

And I forgot the significant number of people who don't play computer games.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Dekartz

[Zuulass 45]

went thru a few forums and only about 3 people are complaining about KOS

so the amount of people you keep referring to might not be as much as you think

[dekartz 315]

Also,  this thread alone is a fine example of why it's not a good idea. There are more people against it than for it. Majority rules.

 

(Since it's a numbers game and all)

Edited January 30, 2014 by Dekartz

[KerrSG1 113]

Some people against it, but with no real cause as to why it should not be implemented.  Your side really seems to come down to what is an 'elitist' argument, that this game isn't for people who 'just can't handle it' or something like that.  Well sorry, but you still failed to demonstrate why PVE and PVP servers can't exist.  You could still keep your 'elitist' position by saying you only play on PVP servers.  The game makers get more sales by a broader base.  Everyone wins.

[dekartz 315]

Except that pandering to the "lowest common denominator" as it were would speak badly of the development team who said they wanted a harsh unforgiving game that won't be for everyone.

 

Won't be for everyone

 

 

Won't Be For Everyone 

[1S1K-Airborne 148]

Expect a lot of KOSers to be shitting on your idea.

 

My opinion.........YOUR server, YOU pay for it, YOUR rules.  If people like it, they'll play there.  If they don't then they can GTFO and go to another server.

 

There's not one RIGHT way to play this game.  It's your server, your money, your rules.

[1S1K-Airborne 148]

Also,  this thread alone is a fine example of why it's not a good idea. There are more people against it than for it. Majority rules.

 

(Since it's a numbers game and all)

 

Then you go buy a server, and you can make your own rules.

 

He's paying for the server, NOT YOU.

 

I'm glad idiots like you don't make "life rules".  Otherwise I'd come live in your house, eat your shit, and drive your car into a tree.  It's not YOURS right?

Edited January 30, 2014 by 1S1K-Airborne

[dekartz 315]

Then you go buy a server, and you can make your own rules.

 

He's paying for the server, NOT YOU.

 

I'm glad idiots like you don't make "life rules".  Otherwise I'd come live in your house, eat your shit, and drive your car into a tree.  It's not YOURS right?

 

 

By that logic: Then you go make a survival game, and you can make your own rules. Because as it stands, there are rules against making PVE servers.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Dekartz

[KerrSG1 113]

Then you go buy a server, and you can make your own rules.

 

He's paying for the server, NOT YOU.

 

Absolutely, but in order for it to be setup that way, we would need the developer to provide the tool to enable PVE on a server that we could pay for.

[dekartz 315]

Absolutely, but in order for it to be setup that way, we would need the developer to provide the tool to enable PVE on a server that we could pay for.

 

And that's where my qualm comes in. Play how you want. But don't expect the developer to cater to it, especially when it goes against the stated "spirit" of the game.

[dallas 5195]

Absolutely, but a million copies in a world of 7 billion is a drop in the bucket.  Increased sales come from increased player base.  PVE would capture the entire spectrum of players interested.

The team is not interested in compromising their vision to reach a wider casual audience and let's face it, DayZ isn't really that hardcore, if you're willing to learn and adapt, you're going to figure out the mechanics and the player patterns in no time. 

 

However if you're refusing to learn from your mistakes and demands to be catered to like a child, you've chosen the wrong game. It's pretty easy to predict the PvP hot spots on the map and there's plenty of areas, where the probability of meeting other players are very small. The only reason for PvE servers, is because you want to be able to walk into a military base and collect the top tier gear, which you really only need if you PvP.

[Capo 323]

And that's where my qualm comes in. Play how you want. But don't expect the developer to cater to it, especially when it goes against the stated "spirit" of the game.

 

this. Grow the fuck up guys, you can piss and moan all you want, you won't be getting PvE servers till private hives come about and admins enforce them, and even then you're still going to die to KoS. 

[dekartz 315]

I'm curious, how would you propose PVE servers work? Do bullets simply not harm other survivors? Are you unable to aim at them? Are you immediately kicked upon shooting at someone else?

[KerrSG1 113]

I'm curious, how would you propose PVE servers work? Do bullets simply not harm other survivors? Are you unable to aim at them? Are you immediately kicked upon shooting at someone else?

 

Fair enough question, no friendly fire.  No gun or weapon can harm another player.  Players can still be damaged by the elements, falls, disease, hunger, thirst, animals, zombies, etc.  But no other player can harm another player.  PVE.

[Martmital 436]

PvE on a PvP server like a boss...

[dekartz 315]

Fair enough question, no friendly fire.  No gun or weapon can harm another player.  Players can still be damaged by the elements, falls, disease, hunger, thirst, animals, zombies, etc.  But no other player can harm another player.  PVE.

1. Already see an exploit = pushing others off of roofs/into the path of things etc.

 

2. This adds code to the game that some enterprising scripter could easily port to non-PVE servers that would make them invulnerable.

 

3. With the engine being what it is and weapons not being tied to a "faction" (and zombie attacks essentially being another "weapon") this would take time and effort to code. Time and effort that could be going to things that the majority of the Game's playerbase actually want to see.

[KerrSG1 113]

1. Already see an exploit = pushing others off of roofs/into the path of things etc.

 

2. This adds code to the game that some enterprising scripter could easily port to non-PVE servers that would make them invulnerable.

 

3. With the engine being what it is and weapons not being tied to a "faction" (and zombie attacks essentially being another "weapon") this would take time and effort to code. Time and effort that could be going to things that the majority of the Game's playerbase actually want to see.

 

 

1.  A minor exploit worth living with.  If you stand in front of a cliff, don't be surprised if a breeze carries you off it.

 

2.  Well shoot, if a hacker could exploit it to harm people on a PVP server, then by all means, cancel any thought on PVE!!!!  Oh, those guns that could be exploited by a hacker, let's go ahead and cancel guns.  Vehicles exploited by hacker?  Get rid of those.  Just eliminate anything that could be exploited by a hacker.  Oh, no game left.  Really, that's a non argument there.

 

3.  Sorry, not true.  In terms of programming, having no friendly fire (make all players 'friendly') is one of the easiest things there is.

[dekartz 315]

1.  A minor exploit worth living with.  If you stand in front of a cliff, don't be surprised if a breeze carries you off it.

 

2.  Well shoot, if a hacker could exploit it to harm people on a PVP server, then by all means, cancel any thought on PVE!!!!  Oh, those guns that could be exploited by a hacker, let's go ahead and cancel guns.  Vehicles exploited by hacker?  Get rid of those.  Just eliminate anything that could be exploited by a hacker.  Oh, no game left.  Really, that's a non argument there.

 

3.  Sorry, not true.  In terms of programming, having no friendly fire (make all players 'friendly') is one of the easiest things there is.

 

And what experience do you have with the Real Virtuality engine again?