Suggestion: Benefits for grouping together, killing players

[Runefox 1]

Hey, so, I'm brand new at the mod, so much so that I haven't even installed it yet. That probably doesn't do much for the credibility of this suggestion, but hear me out. I've been doing a lot of reading here on the forums, and I've been formulating some ideas that might help mediate some of the problems I've been reading about. At any rate, I haven't seen any suggestions quite like this one yet, so I'm just gonna put it out there.

What I suggest is a balanced system that rewards players for doing certain tasks, with a certain degree of risk involved. Specifically, the following (and this applies to ALL players):

1) Groups of players - The more players in a given area there are, the more loot should spawn to support them (or, maybe the relative safety in numbers is enough of a perk, and scarcity of supplies makes for more interesting gameplay?). At the same time, the more players in a given area, the more zombies should spawn, and their aggro radius should increase for every person in the "party", to a certain maximum, to apply as a multiplier of any individual's visibility or noise. Realistically, this makes sense, since as a group there is more overall movement and noise that isn't taken into account by counting players individually. Zombies should be able to pick up on groups more easily. This makes the decision between travelling in groups or alone a tougher one, and one that has both pros and cons. Travelling alone equals less resistance, and a lower profile, while travelling together increases the relative safety of the group and amount of loot that can be found, at the cost of attracting more attention.

2) Killing players - Without regard to self-defence kills or as a PK/"bandit", killing other players should increase the aggro radius of the killer (the "scent of fresh blood" attracts more zombies). This effect should take the shape of a "survivor kills per hour" counter. The more kills per hour, the more aggressive zombies will be, and the more likely harder-to-kill zombies will spawn nearby (but with the added bonus of possibly carrying better loot, or guarding better loot spawned nearby). After an hour, the kill is struck from the counter, which lets the player settle back into normality. This adds more strategy to killing another player, and makes things more challenging, particularly if two 'factions' group up with the above effect and try to make war with each other. Should discourage that kind of behavior (but not deny the players the choice to do so).

3) Identifying players - This kind of goes back to the grouping bit. Would it be terribly difficult to be able to "group up" and identify each other by, say, an armband of a selectable colour? That would make things much easier to manage overall as a group. In a survival scenario like this, it wouldn't be too great a stretch to see survivors identifying themselves to each other this way when they group up, and it should help keep friendly fire to a minimum.

Anyway, that's my first post. Hopefully that doesn't come off as too pretentious (and hopefully I didn't miss identical suggestions while I was reading through the forum), but I really see a lot of potential in this mod, and I'd like to see the realism maintained while enabling subtle effects like these to guide players through their survival experience.

[The Killing Joke 43]

2) Killing players - Without regard to self-defence kills or as a PK/"bandit"' date=' killing other players should increase the aggro radius of the killer (the "scent of fresh blood" attracts more zombies). This effect should take the shape of a "survivor kills per hour" counter. The more kills per hour, the more aggressive zombies will be, and the more likely harder-to-kill zombies will spawn nearby (but with the added bonus of possibly carrying better loot, or guarding better loot spawned nearby). After an hour, the kill is struck from the counter, which lets the player settle back into normality. This adds more strategy to killing another player, and makes things more challenging, particularly if two 'factions' group up with the above effect and try to make war with each other. Should discourage that kind of behavior (but not deny the players the choice to do so).[/quote']

The challenge to the first part of your idea is long-range attacks. I agree that 'blood lust' might bring more zombies out, but to keep it realistic, they'd aggro around the victim, and not the attacker.

Otherwise, I definitely commend you on a well thought out post!

TKJ

[Runefox 1]

The challenge to the first part of your idea is long-range attacks. I agree that 'blood lust' might bring more zombies out' date=' but to keep it realistic, they'd aggro around the victim, and not the attacker.[/quote']

Hmm, that's true. I suppose it might be interesting to have zombies crowd around the victim, too, and that would also add a degree of strategy, but not in the direction I was going for. That one might require a bit more thought.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Hmm' date=' that's true. I suppose it might be interesting to have zombies crowd around the victim, too, and that would also add a degree of strategy, but not in the direction I was going for. That one might require a bit more thought.

[/quote']

This situation is a toughy, I'll give you that. There are HUNDREDS of posts regarding fairness of play, and there haven't been a lot of favourable ideas which would be good for good guys and bad guys alike. Neither side is conceding an inch! (I'm on the bad guys' side. I want the opportunity to be good, or bad, and not have players shoot at me just because I'm dressed differently.)

TKJ

[Runefox 1]

This situation is a toughy' date=' I'll give you that. There are HUNDREDS of posts regarding fairness of play, and there haven't been a lot of favourable ideas which would be good for good guys and bad guys alike. Neither side is conceding an inch! (I'm on the bad guys' side. I want the opportunity to be good, or bad, and not have players shoot at me just because I'm dressed differently.)[/quote']

Yeah, and I don't think I'll manage to crack that stalemate just by this suggestion alone, but I think this is probably the best path to handle it. The "bandit" thing is one way to go, for sure, but it does break immersion, and not many people seem to be happy about it around here, either.

I'm more likely to play a 'good' character, but really, I'd like to have the choice to go 'bad', too. And I'd like the choice to go 'good' again once I'm done with that. I'd like to have to make those choices based on my situation, much like anyone would in reality, rather than simply based on increasing my ever growing pile of beans. And I'd like to have others be able to do the same. It creates a dynamic that's hard to really describe, something that very closely resembles a real survival scenario and how people act. Without consequence, someone won't have any inhibitions for doing something. Without reward, neither will they have any reason to do something. The hand that guides those things needs to be subtle, so that players make their own choices, and provide a clear risk vs reward decision.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Without consequence' date=' someone won't have any inhibitions for doing something. Without reward, neither will they have any reason to do something. The hand that guides those things needs to be subtle, so that players make their own choices, and provide a clear risk vs reward decision.[/quote']

This has become my favourite comment so far. I tried giving you a 'rep' point for it, but it looks like I'm only able to give out a certain number per day.

I love the way you put that, and it's true to say that there's no real risk of being super-evil in the game. The thing that does actually upset me are those who use it unfairly - camping a spawn point is only one example.

I'd like to have the ability to play both sides, and not be penalized for it outright if I choose to off someone who's irritating me.

TKJ

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Without consequence' date=' someone won't have any inhibitions for doing something. Without reward, neither will they have any reason to do something. The hand that guides those things needs to be subtle, so that players make their own choices, and provide a clear risk vs reward decision.[/quote']

This has become my favourite comment so far. I tried giving you a 'rep' point for it, but it looks like I'm only able to give out a certain number per day.

I love the way you put that, and it's true to say that there's no real risk of being super-evil in the game. The thing that does actually upset me are those who use it unfairly - camping a spawn point is only one example.

I'd like to have the ability to play both sides, and not be penalized for it outright if I choose to off someone who's irritating me.

TKJ

I agree that exploiting the limitations of the game world should be discouraged (loot camp, server hopping, lag, force disconnect, etc)

but i also believe that we are not children anymore and don't need a sandbox game to reward us when we do a good deed.

Good and bad are concepts that only apply in structured societies, i would even say that i believe human rights don't apply in dayz.

[The Killing Joke 43]

but i also believe that we are not children anymore and don't need a sandbox game to reward us when we do a good deed.

I'm almost 40, so I quite resemble this remark!

:D

TKJ

[Runefox 1]

I love the way you put that' date=' and it's true to say that there's no real risk of being super-evil in the game. The thing that does actually upset me are those who use it unfairly - camping a spawn point is only one example.[/quote']

Spawn camping is a problem that would need to be addressed a different way, for sure. My ideas so far would make that an interesting proposition if someone's on a killstreak and wanders into newbietown. :P More randomized spawn locations might help keep that in check.

I agree that exploiting the limitations of the game world should be discouraged (loot camp' date=' server hopping, lag, force disconnect, etc)

but i also believe that we are not children anymore and don't need a sandbox game to reward us when we do a good deed.

Good and bad are concepts that only apply in structured societies, i would even say that i believe human rights don't apply in dayz.[/quote']

I totally agree with you there. That's why I'm not necessarily saying that anyone needs to be rewarded, per se, but that benefits and drawbacks in certain styles of play should be offered to compensate for the virtual world's inability to truly capture how things would be in a real-world situation.

Everything I've suggested here has been in the spirit of being neutral to the "good" and the "bad", to the end of making those definitions moot. It's more of an enhancement to the nature of the world and how it reacts to players doing one thing or another, within reason and in the realm of the pseudo-realism presented in-game.

I've seen some of the suggestions on the matter of PVP/PVE, and they aren't elegant nor functional, mostly punishments to deter or incentives to promote. That's a very heavy-handed approach to things that tries to shoehorn people into playing a certain way. That's not what this game is about.

[The Killing Joke 43]

I've seen some of the suggestions on the matter of PVP/PVE' date=' and they aren't elegant nor functional, mostly punishments to deter or incentives to promote. That's a very heavy-handed approach to things that tries to shoehorn people into playing a certain way. That's not what this game is about.[/quote']

You. I like you. I definitely wouldn't shoot you in the back. (...too quickly.)

;)

TKJ

[Alex LWG 2]

1) is quite a smart idea, it'd be good to implement it into the game.

[Runefox 1]

You. I like you. I definitely wouldn't shoot you in the back. (...too quickly.)

;)

:P The TF2 sniper quote fits here.

Anyway, yeah. I see this mod as leaving as much up to the player as possible. Doing anything else risks breaking the immersion of the game.