Allow Server Configurable Pve Only

[ploulaf 89]

Valid points, but that doesn't detract from the point I'm making; A person that does not know you are there poses exactly zero threat to you at that moment in time. Zero.

At that moment in time.

[Monkfish (DayZ) 339]

 

Wow, I could name quite a few scenarios where this would not be true.

Go ahead and name them then.

 

At that moment in time.

Exactly. My comment is in direct response to this;

 

I see a person, he has not seen me yet. He is always going to be a threat to me and right now I have an easy kill. So take the shot. Live longer.

This is not a true statement. The person observed is only a threat to the observer if they're aware of the observer's existence. If they are not aware, there is no way they can be a threat.

[skyline-gtr 130]

Decides to shoot in a random direction.

[Hethwill_Khan 233]

Valid points, but that doesn't detract from the point I'm making; A person that does not know you are there poses exactly zero threat to you at that moment in time. Zero.

 

Is not about being a threat. Is about him and his buddies. He will kill you for what you MAY carry ( or just for the sake of spending a bullet...who knows... ).

 

In the moment the die are cast, you are out of the game and he is still playing it; in the figurative sense of a table game :)

 

Lets say you are not a threat, but he sees you as an opportunity. Doesnt make it better I know... especially because half the stuff will be unusable. So he might kill 5 or more until he gets the stuff he wants.

[Monkfish (DayZ) 339]

Decides to shoot in a random direction.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.  :lol:

 

Seriously? From "quite a few scenarios", the first (and only) one you post is "shooting in a random direction"? That's just... tenuous. At best. And incredibly unlikely. Try again.

 

Is not about being a threat.

Really? Is it not? Because my (very specific) point is exactly about the threat someone who doesn't know your location poses to you (hint: it's "none"), which is the very lame justification Xenogenetic used for killing someone on sight.

[skyline-gtr 130]

Spoken like someone who knows what the fuck is going on.

 

And here's my point of view;

 

Your thinly veiled banditry does not wash with me. A person who is not aware of you is not a threat to you, at all, and they will never pose a threat to you whilst they are unaware of you. To state otherwise is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Of course, this does not prevent the possibility of them becoming a threat at a later time, but that's a different issue entirely. Similarly, a newspawn ambling about with a wrench is not a threat to you until they firstly see you (see above), and then get within striking distance of you. Keep them at a distance with warnings, or just make sure they're never aware of you, and they will not be a threat to you. Simples. If they sneak up on you and manage to clobber you, that's a failing on your part (poor observation/situational awareness) but not a justification for pre-emptive killing when you neither know their motives or intentions.

 

You made quite a point of bolding "not" and italics for "never".

The fact that someone could possibly decide to shoot in a random direction, makes your statement false.

I see you laugh at this.

If you require more scenarios to disprove your adamant statement then I will surely oblige.

[cj14 189]

Look man. Most games these days cater to people like you that want it easy. This isn't "World of Spoonfeeding". This is Dayz and Rocket is making a game that most game companies are afraid to make because of people like you, people that won't buy it unless there is an easy button. This game is meant to be hard core and it's going to stay that way.

I'm on my 35th straight hour (minus the one punch I took in the face that sent me unconscious, but got revived) with no death and that's spending 95% of my time in Electro and having at least 30 battles.

Continue playing the game, gather some skills, learn to stay alive and then you might learn to enjoy it.

 

This game isn't hardcore at all, maybe a little bit stressful, but it's fun to TRY to make your own story. PvE servers I think is a good idea, but under no circumstances should allow the same character to cross over the PvP servers...otherwise, every single bitch will loot PvE and go kill in PvP (PvE MUST have more zombies and less loot that PvP servers if they ever become a thing)

[Exorade 214]

The point is SOME people like to avoid the needless aggravation of dealing with internet trolls who are only out to ruin other people's fun.

 

If I kill you for something you're wearing. It's not 'trolling'. Nor is it 'griefing'.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Exorade

[a_ruttle 199]

Right, no problem with this idea provided that these servers aren't on the hive so one can't just easy mode to get good gear then go onto a pvp server

[smoke-uk 7]

"This is simply asking for a build of the game that caters to ALL players including those wanting PVE only. "

 

Maybe it should be added but these PVE servers should be seperate from regular mode just like hardcore is. This way you start a PVE character and it's stored only on those servers, plus this would stop people using them to get strong then go to PVP server.

I think it's too early for this kind of stuff though.. There's hardly any enviroment to battle right now. The odd zombie.. Hunger, Thirst, Random glitches that result in death lol

[KerrSG1 113]

It seems easy enough.

 

There's a separate character for "Regular" and a separate character for "Hardcore," so just make another character slot for "PVE Only" servers.  Never will the three cross over to another server.

[minime1000 78]

This will be possible with private hives.

But as Rocket doesn't want to scare people away from the game, it might actually become an official server option. Something for everyone.

[Corto 34]

Honestly, the amount of intolerance and narrow minded people on the forum (which is not uncommon on the internet) surprises me. What's the deal if somebody wants to rent a server and set it to PvE, just because that's how they like to play it? The game is a sandbox, and people can and should play it the way the want to play it. And even if it's a valid point that tension generated by the possibility of other players killing you just because why the f not is what makes the game what it is, it is still just a game. If somebody that likes it "hardcore" (give me a minute I'm trying to wipe my tears of laughter now) feels offended because some people might enjoy some simple and relaxed PvE gameplay (which could, honestly, be fun in some way, with hunting, camping, trying stuff out), that somebody should have his head checked urgently, because it's none of their business how the rest of the world enjoys playing their games.

Again, if Dean Hall doesn't want to add a "no friendly fire" option to the game, is fine by me. But I reckon I could take some time off from my everyday life and enjoy some "softcore" gameplay. If I have something to prove to myself it won't be on a video game.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Corto

[BlinkingRiki182 54]

Again, how does it harm you to have PVP and PVE servers?  It's insignificant coding, it's a switch flipped essentially, and it broadens the game player base and their sales.  Hell, I wouldn't mind playing PVP servers occasionally, but I'd rather invest more time in PVE servers than deal with the typical internet chaff that go to an open PVP server.  As for Rocket, his mind can be changed.

 

I'll give you a good argument - we want the game devs to devote their time creating the best possible PvP experience and not waste their time with PvE. Go play something else, thank you.

[minime1000 78]

Honestly, the amount of intolerance and narrow minded people on the forum (which is not uncommon on the internet) surprises me. What's the deal if somebody wants to rent a server and set it to PvE, just because that's how they like to play it? The game is a sandbox, and people can and should play it the way the want to play it. And even if it's a valid point that tension generated by the possibility of other players killing you just because why the f not is what makes the game what it is, it is still just a game. If somebody that likes it "hardcore" (give me a minute I'm trying to wipe my tears of laughter now) feels offended because some people might enjoy some simple and relaxed PvE gameplay (which could, honestly, be fun in some way, with hunting, camping, trying stuff out), that somebody should have his head checked urgently, because it's none of their business how the rest of the world enjoys playing their games.

Again, if Dean Hall doesn't want to add a "no friendly fire" option to the game, is fine by me. But I reckon I could take some time off from my everyday life and enjoy some "softcore" gameplay. If I have something to prove to myself it won't be on a video game.

It splits the community and sometimes restrictions are good things if used correctly.

For an example if Dark Souls had a very simple feature like quick saving/loading (that would be optional) it wouldn't be half the game it is now and why people like it.

Sandbox doesn't mean it should be something for everyone. It means you can do whatever you want in the constraints of the game.

[Corto 34]

I'll give you a good argument - we want the game devs to devote their time creating the best possible PvP experience and not waste their time with PvE. Go play something else, thank you.

 

The developers are going to focus on what's more important for the game, they are professionals after all. Rest assured they will give you the best PvP experience they can. So don't worry about that. Adding a "no pvp fire" option shouldn't be much of a hassle, I've also programmed gameplay for several mods, so I know.

 

It splits the community and sometimes restrictions are good things if used correctly.

For an example if Dark Souls had a very simple feature like quick saving/loading (that would be optional) it wouldn't be half the game it is now and why people like it.

Sandbox doesn't mean it should be something for everyone. It means you can do whatever you want in the constraints of the game.

 

Once again, intolerance. If you like the full "hardcore, have something to prove" package, you will get it (and I'm going to certainly enjoy playing it too). But, how does it affect you that some people could get together to play happy campfire with DayZ? After all, if including a pve only variable is going to attract more buyers, it's good for the business. You get to play the game the way you want it and other people get to play it the way they want it.

[dallas 5195]

It seems easy enough.

 

There's a separate character for "Regular" and a separate character for "Hardcore," so just make another character slot for "PVE Only" servers.  Never will the three cross over to another server.

I think we also need a separate server for people with blue shirts and a separate server for melee only and maybe one for left handed people. Or we could just remember that DayZ isn't a PvP or PvE game, it's just a game that doesn't dictate or judge, how you interact with other people.

 

 

This will be possible with private hives.

But as Rocket doesn't want to scare people away from the game, it might actually become an official server option. Something for everyone.

Oh but Rocket do indeed want to scare players away from the alpha, just look at the allcaps warning on the sales page and the pricing. This is not about increasing sales, this about a vision, a harsh and unforgiving one.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Dallas

[minime1000 78]

I would like killstreaks and weapon unlocks on spawn. I mean you do not have to play on the servers that have these so it doesn't affect you.

Oh, and a minimap too.

[BlinkingRiki182 54]

The developers are going to focus on what's more important for the game, they are professionals after all. Rest assured they will give you the best PvP experience they can. So don't worry about that. Adding a "no pvp fire" option shouldn't be much of a hassle, I've also programmed gameplay for several mods, so I know.

 

I am a programmer myself so I know full well that it would be easy to do. But I don't support the idea of bothering the devs with things that are not in their scope at the moment. If you were working in a big company you would know how much time such a "minor" feat. will cost to the team involved (im just making a comparison here, sometimes developing is just part of a bigger process). You will get your PvE in time. Right now there are too many bugs to be fixed and things to be implemented to worry about PvE.

Edited February 7, 2014 by BlinkingRiki182

[Corto 34]

I am a programmer myself so I know full well that it would be easy to do. But I don't support the idea of bothering the devs with things that are not in their scope at the moment. If you were working in a big company you would know how much time such a "minor" feat. will cost to the team involved (im just making a comparison here, sometimes developing is just part of a bigger process). You will get your PvE in time. Right now there are too many bugs to be fixed and things to be implemented to worry about PvE.

 

I don't worry about a thing regarding video games. But thanks for agreeing with me. It's nice to read something from someone that knows what he's talking about instead of reading infantile opinions that shout intolerance. I don't know why this creates such a fuzz when it's clear that suggesting PvE won't distract the developers from the main goal. And if I get PvE or not, I don't care. I'm not against it or in favor, I'm just against intolerance and childish arguments.

[Corto 34]

I would like killstreaks and weapon unlocks on spawn. I mean you do not have to play on the servers that have these so it doesn't affect you.

Oh, and a minimap too.

 

Now you're just being silly. How old are you? I may understand you.

[minime1000 78]

Now you're just being silly. How old are you? I may understand you.

But it does not affect you. You can ignore servers with these features. Don't be so intolerant towards people who like a minimap or guns when spawning.

[Corto 34]

I never said a thing against having Call of Duty features on the game. I called you silly because you're clearly trying to provoke me and that's not why I subscribed to this forum. Learn to read and comprehend before replying. Never mind the question about your age though. It's irrelevant now.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Corto

[KerrSG1 113]

I think we also need a separate server for people with blue shirts and a separate server for melee only and maybe one for left handed people. Or we could just remember that DayZ isn't a PvP or PvE game, it's just a game that doesn't dictate or judge, how you interact with other people.

 

Sarcasm is unbecoming.  Implementing a server option for PVE only would not be significantly cumbersome as programming goes.  

[dallas 5195]

Sarcasm is unbecoming.  Implementing a server option for PVE only would not be significantly cumbersome as programming goes.  

But why would the dev team spend 15 minutes on a PvE Hive, if they don't even allow servers to have a No Kill policy?