This is the best PVP game ever created

[7-75 callaghan 43]

Realistic, not 'realistical'. Sorry i'm not normally a language nazi but that is really annoying.

[TheMachine 803]

I'm ok with PvP in DayZ' date=' but only when necessary.

[/quote']

This argument is so odd to me. Like do "necessary" bullets somehow hurt less than "rush" bullets? They seem like they would both kill you in precisely the same way so I can't for the life of me figure out why it matters to you one iota why someone just opened your skull like a harvest pumpkin.

And how is it you can even tell the difference, pray tell? How do you know whether or not your death was "necessary?" And what defines necessary? Better yet, WHO defines it?

The fact is, no PvP in DayZ is ever necessary - no matter the circumstance. There's always water near enough, always food near enough, always a transfusion to be had, etc. So it's really not about necessity, is it? How could it ever be? Is it based on how low your blood is, hunger, thirst? What parameters must be met before YOUR personal subjective evaluation of PvP says it's okay to take a life? And why are your thresholds the acceptable ones while mine mean I should go play a different game?

Self-defense is really the only "necessary" PvP people seem to be universally accepting of, yet that inherently requires an aggressive, "unnecessary" PvP'er in order to make it necessary in the first place so don't you set up a bit of a yin and yang situation there saying you are fine with PvP but then basically lay out a set of rules that mean the only people you would ever actually PvP against are the ones you just got done saying should go play another game?

Some players just kill for the rush; not cool, go play PR if thats your game

No, I really won't. I'm going to stick with DayZ and play every day and you're going to have to learn to live with it.

Yeah this, exactly.

People just like to come on forums and demand something be 'done' to reduce the number of times THEY PERSONALLY are the victims of someone else's bullets.

The fact is the game is about survival, I don't ever want it to turn into a soppy role playing POS where everyone teams up to raid zombies, I want to be running in a field and hear the gunfire cracking around me.

I want to panic and fire wildly into the tree line as I make a break for cover.

Maybe I'll die? Maybe the guy shooting will die?

Or maybe I'm the guy shooting?

That's what makes dayZ fun - so in a similar vein to what the PvP-Phobes keep quoting There's thousands of games out there for PvE, if that's what you're into, go play those, and leave the thrill of the unmoderated, no rules, no holds bared badassary of DayZ to the rest of us .

MACHINE - OUT.

[Kageru 18]

of course game mechanics define that. what is the penalty of killing someone in a post apocalyptic world?

would you like people get struck by lightning for Pk's?

any sort of PK penalty would diminish this game immensly. just PvE is boring once you gather good gear. what am I gonna do with a DMR' date=' snipe slow moving zombies?

[/quote']

It's a game. You set rules to encourage or discourage various styles of play. "Realism" in a game, especially one based on a fantasy situation, is whatever the designer wants it to be. If you have no mechanics to discourage player killing it quickly tends to become the dominant game style because a lot of people get immense satisfaction out of killing other players / disrupting their game experience.

There's lots of ways you can control it without removing it. Make it more possible for co-operative players to group together so they provide a minimal threat to the generally more organized bandit gangs. Make zombies more of a threat to people camping high value targets in what are meant to be zombie infested wastes... hundreds of options.

The best solution would be something that fits the them of the game. The zombies need to be more challenging and part of the solution. If they were a real threat it would encourage people to work together more. But there's limits as to how much that is possible without making the new player experience punitive. It will probably end up with high value targets (cities, military bases) having much more potent, numerous and smart zombies so players can select their challenge.

[TheMachine 803]

of course game mechanics define that. what is the penalty of killing someone in a post apocalyptic world?

would you like people get struck by lightning for Pk's?

any sort of PK penalty would diminish this game immensly. just PvE is boring once you gather good gear. what am I gonna do with a DMR' date=' snipe slow moving zombies?

[/quote']

It's a game. You set rules to encourage or discourage various styles of play. "Realism" in a game, especially one based on a fantasy situation, is whatever the designer wants it to be. If you have no mechanics to discourage player killing it quickly tends to become the dominant game style because a lot of people get immense satisfaction out of killing other players / disrupting their game experience.

There's lots of ways you can control it without removing it. Make it more possible for co-operative players to group together so they provide a minimal threat to the generally more organized bandit gangs. Make zombies more of a threat to people camping high value targets in what are meant to be zombie infested wastes... hundreds of options.

The best solution would be something that fits the them of the game. The zombies need to be more challenging and part of the solution. If they were a real threat it would encourage people to work together more. But there's limits as to how much that is possible without making the new player experience punitive. It will probably end up with high value targets (cities, military bases) having much more potent, numerous and smart zombies so players can select their challenge.

You made a thread suggesting there be NPC's that shoot 'bandits' on sight.

Seriously, GTFO - this is not a sanitised carebear friendly game, there are no safe zones.

That's what makes it good.

There's a very small minority that keep complaining about being killed and I'd suggest they're simply playing the wrong game.

This is DayZ - invent your own mechanic for surviving.

[logan23 118]

I will be smiling one day when the Devs put in a system like the sanity one where if you kill to much it will actually affect you, lol

But seriously, I think the end game building a settlement and society in the game will cut down on some of the PvPing like killing new players.

I do belive we will see some system that will make PvP players shed some tears. DayZ is brutal and will continue that way, as we saw Zeds getting updated- later other systems will come in and I'm sure one or two will cause PvP tears.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

It's a game. You set rules to encourage or discourage various styles of play.

Except that's exactly what rocket says he has no intention of doing. How long have you been here? Are you really expecting him to just wake up one day and decide that his whole sandbox idea is silly and start implementing PvE servers and a quest system?

It's not going to happen' date=' man. Really. DayZ is an unrestricted sandbox and I can pretty much guarantee you it will remain as such throughout Alpha, Beta and Final.

If you have no mechanics to discourage player killing it quickly tends to become the dominant game style because a lot of people get immense satisfaction out of killing other players / disrupting their game experience.

Right, so instead of implementing arbitrary, artificial, non-sandbox-style slaps on the wrist and stupid "go wear a dunce cap" type punishments we implement mechanics that create an environment where unrestricted PvP can take place while adding an incredibly interesting, heart-pounding and dynamic element to what would otherwise be a pretty drab world.

Heading into town to grab a can of beans, shoot a couple zombies. Hooray! Except, not. Boring actually. But do it under the constant knowledge that at any moment a homicidal maniac might come around the corner and start spraying you with assault rifle fire in a moment of murderous panic? Now THAT'S an interesting trip to the grocery store and you just turned a mechanic that most games solve by having you walk up to a vendor and say "Give me the item I desire for the amount of money that is indicated on your beautiful UI, sir" into an incredibly intense struggle for even the most basic survival items.

There's lots of ways you can control it without removing it.

Indeed. But, why, good sir? Why?

Make it more possible for to group together

Yes, because now it's SO impossible...

It will probably end up with high value targets (cities, military bases) having much more potent, numerous and smart zombies so players can select their challenge.

Well, first, that's already true. Military zombies have armor on in the game already.

Second, you need to realize that encouraging cooperation will not discourage PvP. People will simply cooperate AND PvP. I run in a group all the time. I'm never alone. But, I play with the same group all the time and if you're not in it I'm going to shoot your ugly face into tiny individual bite sized ugly pieces when I see you.

This is how it will always be. If cooperation becomes more prevalent, then you will simply see more instances of group vs. group PvP instead of individual shoot outs. Which will be really cool. I can't wait.

Sandbox rules, player-driven story and objectives, player-enforced protocol and etiquette, player-run factions. Mechanics, not rules.

Please don't ask the designers to come hold our hands. We're doing fine, really.

[SupWithThat 2]

Yet again, Zed represents my views to the letter.

Kudos sir.

[Kageru 18]

I'm sure you are. Players will naturally argue in favor of the game-play they want.

There's an interview in which he says it is not a PvP game, but there are mostly mechanics that favor PvP (partly because that's what Arma-II was designed around, though it also assumed balanced teams and gear I assume).

Either he was being misleading, changed his mind or simply hasn't finished the mechanics. We'll both get to find out as the game evolves. But excessive PK activity has been strangling the life out of persistent online games since Ultima online and I don't think he intended the game to be "Day-Z, Cherno deathmatch".

And yes, mechanics not rules, the mechanics should naturally lead to "In this sort of world, I react this way". Removal of the bandit skin removed a (fairly weak) consequence of going on a murderous rampage and the player base adapted.

[funionz 7]

I don't think he intended the game to be "Day-Z' date=' Cherno deathmatch".

[/quote']

I also don't think he intended for so many mouthbreathers to be so completely ignorant that they would just run blindly into the most hostile city on the entire map time and time again, but they do it. Hell just tonight I killed the same guy 5 times in the same city, 3 of those were in the same general area. Do you think anything went through his head where he thought, y'know, maybe I should avoid this city and head elsewhere?

In the end, you control the player, you chose where you go, and what path you take. If you get killed, who's fault is it?

SPOILER ALERT :

[TheMachine 803]

I'm sure you are. Players will naturally argue in favor of the game-play they want.

There's an interview in which he says it is not a PvP game' date=' but there are mostly mechanics that favor PvP (partly because that's what Arma-II was designed around, though it also assumed balanced teams and gear I assume).

Either he was being misleading, changed his mind or simply hasn't finished the mechanics. We'll both get to find out as the game evolves. But excessive PK activity has been strangling the life out of persistent online games since Ultima online and I don't think he intended the game to be "Day-Z, Cherno deathmatch".

And yes, mechanics not rules, the mechanics should naturally lead to "In this sort of world, I react this way". Removal of the bandit skin removed a (fairly weak) consequence of going on a murderous rampage and the player base adapted.

[/quote']

Nah, what's been strangling the life out of games is compromise, creators compromise because they think it'll bring in more sales and make everyone happy to some degree.

But all it ends up doing is pissing everyone off, because no one is ever completely happy and wants it 'their way'.

The sandbox IS the game, it's not part of the game or a mechanic of the game, it IS what makes dayz DayZ. Simple as.

This is the type of hardcore shit I've been waiting for, this is why it's become one of the most popular mods ever so quickly, this is why it's boosted arma 2's sales by 80%.

The second rocket starts implementing stuff to try to please everyone and sanitise this game, it's over.

Not right away, but it'll die a slow painful death.

All rocket needs to do is give players the tools and gameplay options and let them be their own masters, with no overlord decreeing upon them how they should play, who they should kill or what they should do.

[jonryan32@gmail.com 2]

It's true it's not a PVP game, it's a survival game. However, PVP is an integral game mechanic.

[Kageru 18]

Lots of new players spawn within view distance of the major cities and think it looks a great place to get the gear they need to survive. They probably don't realize that surviving the zombies is the easy part.

Besides, the game also has lots of mechanics such a broken legs and infection that force people into the hot-zones. Generally in a weakened state as well.

[funionz 7]

Lots of new players spawn within view distance of the major cities and think it looks a great place to get the gear they need to survive. They probably don't realize that surviving the zombies is the easy part.

Besides' date=' the game also has lots of mechanics such a broken legs and infection that force people into the hot-zones. Generally in a weakened state as well.

[/quote']

And with every bullet, I am serving these people their education.

[TheMachine 803]

Lots of new players spawn within view distance of the major cities and think it looks a great place to get the gear they need to survive. They probably don't realize that surviving the zombies is the easy part.

Besides' date=' the game also has lots of mechanics such a broken legs and infection that force people into the hot-zones. Generally in a weakened state as well.

[/quote']

We all died in those cities lots and lots, it's a learning curve.

And a necessary one at that.

People need to be less quick to come on the forums and demand it be changed to their liking, instead they should learn how to play.

[Kageru 18]

This is the type of hardcore shit I've been waiting for' date=' this is why it's become one of the most popular mods ever so quickly, this is why it's boosted arma 2's sales by 80%.

The second rocket starts implementing stuff to try to please everyone and sanitise this game, it's over. Not right away, but it'll die a slow painful death.

All rocket needs to do is give players the tools and gameplay options and let them be their own masters, with no overlord decreeing upon them how they should play, who they should kill or what they should do.

[/quote']

Nah, it's popular because the idea of surviving the zombie apocalypse encourages people to play it. If they just wanted a death match there's much better games for that.

It boosted sales by 500% I believe.

And the hard-core PK player base is generally a noisy, forum active population because they don't want their fun to end. They tend to be massively outnumbered by a far more casual player base who, in a hard core game, primarily play the role of victim, don't post on the forums and silently stop playing if the game is just them dying a lot. Any MMO in which unlimited PvP and limited PvP are under player control (ie. Trammel in UO terms) find most players want some limits (not neccessarily entire removal of the PvP system though).

[funionz 7]

And the hard-core PK player base is generally a noisy' date=' forum active population because they don't want their fun to end. They tend to be massively outnumbered by a far more casual[/quote']

Stop right there, just stop.

[Kageru 18]

Nah... But feel free to ignore me, ultimately only the designers opinions on what the game should be (and what is capable of being implemented) really matter. Though in MMO games it's pretty well established that Free for all / Full loot PvP games are a niche market. Darkfall failed and even Eve online, which is pretty hard core, has policed safe zones and player organisations to structure PvP.

You can see the two sides in the user comments of this Rock Paper Shotgun[/article].

[funionz 7]

Nah... But feel free to ignore me' date=' ultimately only the designers opinions on what the game should be (and what is capable of being implemented) really matter. Though in MMO games it's pretty well established that Free for all / Full loot PvP games are a niche market. Darkfall failed and even Eve online, which is pretty hard core, has policed safe zones and player organisations to structure PvP.

You can see the two sides in the user comments of this Rock Paper Shotgun[/article].

What I got from what you were saying before, is that since there was an influx of casual players, we should cater to them. That is why I told you to stop. With a player base supposedly exceeding 200k, we could stand to lose quite a few, and it wouldn't change a thing.

[renpab80@gmail.com 41]

Lots of new players spawn within view distance of the major cities and think it looks a great place to get the gear they need to survive. They probably don't realize that surviving the zombies is the easy part.

Besides' date=' the game also has lots of mechanics such a broken legs and infection that force people into the hot-zones. Generally in a weakened state as well.

[/quote']

i was a new player almost 2 months ago. I knew before i even started with DayZ, that the coast and the major cites were hotspots. This is a thinking mans game, learn and adapt to the environment. When i think back, i was excited to learn the mechanics, cities, hotspots, tactics, stealth, etc. Not once it came to my mind to go to the forums as a new player and whine about being killed. Life and death is part of the experience. I am not even a bandit or hardcore-pvper, but the racing of your heart when meeting others is what makes this game.

[r3db4ss 6]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/22/day-z-arma-3-interview-on-left-4-dead-skyrim-player-emotion-and-in-game-disease/

"....Crowe: Yeah, you were saying, there was no such concept as bandits while you were in New Zealand. Then these Europeans came in and started killing each other.

Hall: They did. It got so bad. Because there was a bug where everyone was spawning on the beach. No problem in New Zealand.

Buchta:: People started helping each other, right?

Hall: Yeah, they started helping each other.

Buchta:: While the Russians…

Hall: There was a guy who would wait there and he would help the new players when they spawned in. And then on the Europe server, it just became a bloodbath. It was so bad we had to shut the server down until I fixed the mechanic....."

I just wish my ping would allow me to play on a New Zealand server .....

Im sure DayZ could be a good pvp game, but for now the whole Bandits vs Survivors vs Zeds dont work that well, with all that server hooping-Alt F4 "cheater"- lack of ingame communication- etc...

Dont get me wrong im not crying about it, i love that intense situations where you meet other players in the north and you dont know what is going to happen.

But im sure it could be better, and i hope Rocket and his guys find the right balance for every playstyle to go along ;)

[septuscap 42]

Nah' date=' it's popular because the idea of surviving the zombie apocalypse encourages people to play it. If they just wanted a death match there's much better games for that.

[/quote']

First off, it's not deathmatch, it's sandbox PvP. There is a huge difference. In one, each team spawns on opposite ends of the map, rushes to various control points, and then meets in the middle to kill each other.

In the other, players each have their own goals. There is a depth to the PvP that you *can't* get in a deathmatch. And DayZ might be the first sandbox game since Ultima Online in which zergs don't reign supreme by default. (largely by accident I'm sure)

We don't go play a deathmatch game for the same reason you don't go play L4D or Dead Island; because the sandbox is a very powerful gaming construct.

I'm not against any feature that helps PvE players do the things they find cool (activate power grids, group with friends more easily, find friends more easily, make trade cities, etc), but hurting PvP won't help the game.

Whether that sniper that killed you was providing overwatch for his buddies in the city or killing you "for the lulz" doesn't really make any difference -- you ASSUME the latter by default, because victimizing yourself means your play is not in question. But any attempt to punish the latter infringes upon the former.

[funionz 7]

Whether that sniper that killed you was providing overwatch for his buddies in the city or killing you "for the lulz" doesn't really make any difference -- you ASSUME the latter by default' date=' because victimizing yourself means your play is not in question. And any attempt to punish the latter infringes upon the former.

[/quote']

And we finally agree on something.

[Naykon (DayZ) 25]

Kinda reminds me of the early days of Eve online a little bit.

Yeah death in this game is brutal, which it is in Eve as well (or used to be), that's why people started banding together and pooling equipment to survive longer.

Find some friends, get some tents, pool some equipment and start shooting first.

You can't say "this is zombie survival not pvp"

The world goes to shit when there's a mass disease and humans will kill each other to survive.

[Kageru 18]

Eve is supported by people doing PvE in mostly safe zones.. with players geting to decide their level of risk. It tends to be more successful than a game in which the agressor has free reign. It was funny that Rocket identified the arrival of Eve players the start of the exploits, they're a hella smart player base in that regard.

I have no idea about that other post... the individual intent of any PvP act doesn't really matter, it's how it shapes the focus of the game. If you are arguing that sandbox PvP basically means it favors the more organized aggressor whereas the other has equal gear, numbers and less of a loss on death I'd agree. But how it changes anything I've no idea.

[evilkhaoz 2]

I'm friendly on the coast but past zelen I will shoot you.