This is the best PVP game ever created

[SCOUSER 0]

I really don't care about people PKing on sight, or camping the shore to kill new players.

When you start, if you haven't already resigned yourself to dying then you're doing it wrong. This isn't an MMO where you get ever-increasingly better gear and your character never disappears.

To quote Project Zomboid, "This is how you died". Infact I'd wish Rocket would put something like that on the screen right before you spawn on the coast.

[septuscap 42]

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.

No one's forcing you to go to "0.0 space." There are plenty of places that get zero PK traffic. There are plenty of people making survivor groups. There are plenty more MAKING safe areas. And DayZ seems to be attracting players at a FAR faster pace than EVE ever did (for a $30 alpha in many cases).

Your complaints literally boil down to being bitter about bandits killing you, and wanting the game to enact your revenge because you are incapable.

[ZombieCarnage 0]

I wouldnt go as far to say its the "greatest" pvp game ever.

Ultima Online prior Jan 2000 will always be heralded to many as the greatest , simple yet effective pvp and more freedom/sand than any other game since.

DarkfallOnline was very close to recreating this genre while also rewarding skilled players ( Eve's PvP does not compare so dont even bother, when EvE includes FPS interaction then it may be comparable ) but unfortunately the microwave I want it now wowscrub generation could never handle such a game.

DarkfallOnline 2.0 will be the next big thing for full loot open world FPS MMORPG with open PvP but unfortunately AV are very slow with development. It will always be a niche game catering for a niche crowd but that is why there will always be subscribers. You can't get this feeling anywhere else.

I pity gamers who have never experienced such games and regard DayZ as the "best". Its a fun alpha mod but far from the best.

[minime1000 78]

When you have high end gear, helicopters and cars then there is nothing to do but PK everyone you meet.

[septuscap 42]

Ultima Online prior Jan 2000 will always be heralded to many as the greatest ' date=' simple yet effective pvp and more freedom/sand than any other game since.[/quote']

Damn skippy.

DarkfallOnline

It hurts my soul that you mentioned this in the same breath as Ultima Online.

The zerging was a joke really, and the skill ceiling for PvP wasn't even comparable to games like UO and AC.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the concept of free-aim, sandbox MMO, but the PvP was just extremely shallow imo. I still played for some 7 months just to troll Wessex out of the game, but the things that would've made Darkfall great just never came.

[ZombieCarnage 0]

It hurts my soul that you mentioned this in the same breath as Ultima Online.

The zerging was a joke really' date=' and the skill ceiling for PvP wasn't even comparable to games like UO and AC.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the concept of free-aim, sandbox MMO, but the PvP was just extremely shallow imo. I still played for some 7 months just to troll Wessex out of the game, but the things that would've made Darkfall great just never came.

[/quote']

You must have been one of the bads that couldn't handle DFO. If you were zerged, you were outplayed. It was a clan warfare based game not 1v1. Also 99% of players couldn't actually pvp and even when it was a bit more "balanced" again 90% of players had no idea how to PvP.

Skill ceiling of AC and UO were higher? Your comment is laughable, obviously you were never any good at PvP and avoided 1v1s. UO required some skill but was more about timing, AC was a massive level grind ( DFO was a grind to begin with ) and not a true FPS like DFO.

A bad like yourself will never understand. Been playing DFO since EU release and my account is still active ( although my playtime is non existant other than refreshing my house lately ). DFOs slow ( next to non existant ) progression couple with insanely difficult learning curve killed off the population, without massive amounts of players clan warfare is lukewarm.

[chickychickson 0]

i am asking myself: what will happen in this forum if rocket gets a really good idea to punish random useless killing of helpless survivors?

since the pvp-killing-for-fun-ppl are most likely the same that tell "adapt" after every update i think about will they adapt? can they? i dont think so.

if rocket desings his gamemechanics to make the players play like he intends to (almost no pvp). this will be fun to read the forums. ^^

[Spyderrock48 0]

The thing everyone here that complains about the "PvP system" is really uneducated. There is no "system" there is a decision. I personally like the thrill of sitting on the edge of a wood line and head shoting that idiot that is just running straight across it, maybe he will learn. Thus I killed him because I decided too. The game didn't say "Hey man, there's a dude there, you should shoot him!" and give me a little marker. He made a DECISION to sprint hail marry across that field, and then I made a DECISION to shoot the dumb ass in the face. There is no PvP system, there are players being smarter than other players and taking advantage of it. Deal with it, or buy a new game.

[fml 29]

The thing everyone here that complains about the "PvP system" is really uneducated. There is no "system" there is a decision. I personally like the thrill of sitting on the edge of a wood line and head shoting that idiot that is just running straight across it' date=' maybe he will learn. Thus I killed him because I decided too. The game didn't say "Hey man, there's a dude there, you should shoot him!" and give me a little marker. He made a DECISION to sprint hail marry across that field, and then I made a DECISION to shoot the dumb ass in the face. There is no PvP system, there are players being smarter than other players and taking advantage of it. Deal with it, or buy a new game.

[/quote']

[MissBehave 37]

Though I love PvP, a lot of the combat between players I wouldn't even term PvP. A sniper in a ghillie suit, camping out and shooting newbs with flashlights in Electro is just like fishing at a fish farm. No real contest to it. I would love to see some consequences to murdering other people. People are too quick to just shoot without even finding out first if the person is someone they can team up with and actually survive better.

Learn to use direct chat. There is really no reason to run around and shoot players on the beach with flashlights, it just seal clubbing. Would love to see group battles for resources instead of flashlight wars in that respect.

---

When you have high end gear' date=' helicopters and cars then there is nothing to do but PK everyone you meet.

[/quote']

Congratulations, you won the game. Now hit respawn and try to make it challenging again.

[fml 29]

Not only survive better, but raid cities, have a laugh or two, repair a car, fly a heli. It's much more authentic when you are playing with an actual survivor you met in game, otherwise the feeling of "can I trust this person" just isnt there. And just because you group up with someone for a couple days doesnt mean you can't shoot them in the back anymore.

Doesn't co-op look like so much fun?

[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.

No one's forcing you to go to "0.0 space." There are plenty of places that get zero PK traffic. There are plenty of people making survivor groups. There are plenty more MAKING safe areas. And DayZ seems to be attracting players at a FAR faster pace than EVE ever did (for a $30 alpha in many cases).

Your complaints literally boil down to being bitter about bandits killing you' date=' and wanting the game to enact your revenge because you are incapable.

[/quote']

Don't be dumb.

I admire Eve because it has the different play styles. If you want to be "mostly" safe you can do that, but the pickings are slim. If you want to lone wolf there's a space for that, and then there's player empires. It is a game designed so that players can adjust to the level of challenge they can handle. That makes a massive difference to retention and letting new players ease into the game / PvP when they want to.

This game is actually much less balanced because there are no safe areas, few counters to many threats and lots of game mechanics (broken legs, infection, static loot spawns) that force players into high threat environments often while in a weakened state. The zombie mechanic also favors the ambusher that someone who has to try and counter (run, return fire).

I mean if you'd read my suggestions I don't want PvP removed. Having "danger-zones" is good. But co-op oriented players should have a foundation for cooperation to balance out really organized PvP crews and the lack of persistent reputation and zombies should be the primary threat. I reckon that would be more than enough to balance the game so PvP is viable but not quite so dominant.

[heathy87 1]

Zombies will never be the main threat even if they one shot ppl, players will always be the ultimate challenge. AI is just not going to compensate for that.

Eve is a good example there are many NPCs that you can grind but they are nowhere near as popular as PVP fleet fights.

and they've tried harder and harder AI's nothing beats PVP. nothing equals PVP. sleepers, incursions .. they aren't dynamic enough.

[Powermolch 3]

Im here for PvP too. That has nothing to do with CoD Style or Deathmatch cause first rule is always: SURVIVE.

If i'm alone I would not jump on a four people group and killing newbies is very rare I think. Most Players are looking for PvP up the north where better equipped and expirienced people can fight each other.

Collecting things, cooking meat, repair Vehicles, drive around with it and raid Cities is one gal of the game and is the main route. But if we come across other groups who want to raid the same airfields/supermarkets or whatever it will lead to a gunfight.

[Kageru 18]

"Zombies will never be the main threat even if they one shot ppl, players will always be the ultimate challenge. AI is just not going to compensate for that."

You are probably right. If it comes to a contest between human players and game designers / AI my money is on the players. But they could probably selectively be a little more threatening than they are now.

But it is a zombie game after all, they should probably be something more than an irritant while you gear up.

[LumberBack 43]

yeah this needs to change right now, this game isnt about pvp.

[heathy87 1]

You are probably right. If it comes to a contest between human players and game designers / AI my money is on the players. But they could probably selectively be a little more threatening than they are now.

But it is a zombie game after all' date=' they should probably be something more than an irritant while you gear up.

[/quote']

Your right, but i think that is what the mod is working toward, what we want to see is more zombies basically, it needs to be in a state that, you either need to kill your way into a town to get loot, or you need a team of players.

there just needs to be more zombies basically, maybe double what there is now on average, then and only then will they become a feared force, because no one man can tackle them all.

then ppl group up more, then more groups fight each other over loot. well at least hypothetically. first they need to fix the disconnecting issue, then places like the airfield need twice as many zombies, then you'll see ppl actually fighting over loot instead of just running in grabbing what you can and disconnecting.

[Gmanz (DayZ) 13]

No' date=' the game mechanics define that. And at the moment they say, "Killing is good, go for it".

[/quote']

Actually right now the mechanics say the following: If you want to kill, go ahead...if you want to help people, feel free...if you want to be a downright, cold-blooded son-of-a-bitch, I wont stop you...if you want to be the saintliest of saints, then do that...and if you want to wander chernarus bringing the law to the lawless, then feel fucking free...

In other words, play as you choose to play and allow others to do the same, and enjoy the way that their choices enhance your choice.

There is not one damned thing stopping you from choosing exactly how you want to approach each and every single encounter with another player; sure, if you want to try and be friendly you are taking a risk, but there is a lot of fun to be had in doing so...in risking it, but doing so cautiously rather than running at someone screaming "I am friendly...here, I will turn my back and prove it..." :)

[fml 29]

And why' date=' please oh sweet mother tell me why. Why for one single motherfucking second do you think that the game should help you clean up the ridiculous mess that is your game play by holding your hand and pointing out in giant red letters who you need to avoid and who you can go charging past like a mutt in heat in search of your next eminent and inevitable demise at the hands of zombies.

If you're going to play the game like a bloody idiot, please don't come knocking on rocket's door asking for help. Take the diaper off, grab your favorite soda, sit down, and try really hard to play DayZ again.

....for the sake of the forums and the future of this game, just shut up and click respawn.

[/quote']

[Kageru 18]

No' date=' the game mechanics define that. And at the moment they say, "Killing is good, go for it".

[/quote']

Actually right now the mechanics say the following: If you want to kill, go ahead...if you want to help people, feel free...if you want to be a downright, cold-blooded son-of-a-bitch, I wont stop you...if you want to be the saintliest of saints, then do that...and if you want to wander chernarus bringing the law to the lawless, then feel fucking free...

Not really. The game mechanics strongly favor the agressor unless the designer chooses to implement a mechanic against that. As such the move towards "shoot first is safest" in the game community is entirely logical. It's not necessarily positive for the game but that's up to the designer.

[Kolchak (DayZ) 5]

This isn't a PVP game unless you choose for it to be, pvp is and always has been predictable and avoidable.

Deathmatchers are single minded predators and follow the age old patterns of predatory behavior. They conserve energy (they're lazy) and prefer to let their prey do the work for them (camping high population areas). If they are damaged, or think they are going to die, they retreat (disconnect) and they follow game trails. Currently the game trails stretch from the mountains around and between Cherno and Elektro northwest to Stary, it then splits NW to the NW airfield, and to a lesser extent East to Berezino and the NE Airfield. If you don't make yourself a good/easy target (Don't stop, change directions every few seconds as you run across fields, don't loot the towns in the game trail, don't carry a high end weapon) typically they will ignore you and go for the next easy target that will come along.

Real Bandits are a bit less predictable, but only because they have better imaginations and more patience. They will travel off game trails but usually it's for a tertiary objective, something they can complete quickly and then resume their normal patterns.

PVPers will go where they think they can shoot people, if they don't think there are going to be targets in an area, they won't stop there for long. Those are the places you want to be if you don't want to PVP, and you can easily survive there indefinitely.

[septuscap 42]

You must have been one of the bads that couldn't handle DFO. If you were zerged' date=' you were outplayed. It was a clan warfare based game not 1v1.[/quote']

Don't get me wrong, I countered zerg with zerg, it's just not my idea of skilled PvP.

And as far as "clan warfare based game" goes, the design was fucking awful for every system in the game, from sieging to city building.

Skill ceiling of AC and UO were higher? Your comment is laughable' date=' obviously you were never any good at PvP and avoided 1v1s. UO required some skill but was more about timing, AC was a massive level grind ( DFO was a grind to begin with ) and not a true FPS like DFO. [/quote']

1v1 skill wasn't that high in UO, but still way higher than Darkfall. But the real magic in UO was taking on many enemies with just a few people.

A bad like yourself will never understand. Been playing DFO since EU release and my account is still active ( although my playtime is non existant other than refreshing my house lately ). DFOs slow ( next to non existant ) progression couple with insanely difficult learning curve killed off the population' date=' without massive amounts of players clan warfare is lukewarm.

[/quote']

I played since beta, and let me tell you the game was a lot more fun when you had numerous groups all fighting each other in the same area. This continued briefly into retail until Hyperion basically forced zerging of dozens to hundreds of players. My clan also actually HELD cities (Zaguroth, Darkmoor, Oethrain, etc), I've no clue who you are.

That said, the melee system was a joke. Fanboys defending it is more pathetic than ArmA fanboys defending this game's UI/physics.

/derail

[step0229 8]

Deathmatchers are single minded predators and follow the age old patterns of predatory behavior. They conserve energy (they're lazy) and prefer to let their prey do the work for them (camping high population areas).

Don't be the caffeine spider...

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Not really. The game mechanics strongly favor the agressor unless the designer chooses to implement a mechanic against that.

First' date=' mechanics should not be "against" or "for" anything. That's a rule in disguise. Mechanics are neutral. They don't care what you do with them.

Second, the game already has mechanics which, if you so choose, you can utilize to remove almost all of the advantage that agressor wield over you. I've covered many in my post on the incentives to cooperative play. The advantage will always lie with the players who move in a group, play intelligently and tactically, and remain aware of their surroundings.

Barring an agressor logging in to the same room your in, firing, and then immediately logging out - an issue that I do feel strongly rocket will need to solve before this Alpha becomes a Beta - the advantage will remain with the players who play more tactically and remain aware. Agressor or not, if you see them first YOU determine the rules of engagement. Want to avoid confrontation entirely? Leave. Want to get the drop on him? Hide and waylay. Want to get fancy and try and bait him into some action? Make a plan. As long as you get eyes on your target first, you almost always win.

My partner and I have been ambushed many times over the last 32 days that he has survived. At one point both held down inside a grocery store with a silenced assault-rifle wielding, NVG-using, grenade-tossing crazy ass bandit bastard. Though he got the drop on us (this time), we won and both got out without a scratch. How? There were two of us and we worked together and communicated and the guy didn't stand a chance against us after that.

As such the move towards "shoot first is safest" in the game community is entirely logical.

As is simultaneously the move toward "I should find a group of players who are good at this game and befriend them and join up with them because that seems like a much better survival strategy," and then voila suddenly you've got players building relationships and communities as a result of some simple fundamental game mechanics.

No designer had to come along and say "You over there! Form groups. We shall call them 'guilds' and this is exactly how they will work for everyone from now until eternity." Nobody had to say "Hey! I don't like the way you guys are behaving so now it's against the rules" or "I don't personally feel your behavior is 'positive' for the game, so I will disallow it via rules cleverly disguised as mechanics.'" No. He just added mechanics to the sandbox and threw us in and people figured out on their own that moving in groups, even small ones, means you are more powerful than individuals in 99% of scenarios.

[radioghost 2]

I laugh when I see people say that Day-Z "isn't player vs. player."

It's a sandbox game. It's whatever the fuck I want it to be.