This is the best PVP game ever created

[Kageru 18]

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.

[/quote']

*Game* mechanics are generally crafted with an intent as to the gameplay they encourage or discourage. The restricted ammo spawn in the game is intended to force conservation of ammo, the zombie mechanic discourages using "noisy" weapons. The old bandit skins gave you a hint as to how likely it was the person was an active PK, their removal gave you less information and changes how you react. A humanity system that does nothing is truly neutral, but also useless.

And yes, games have rules, in real life as well. It's just that in computer games their implementation is generally automated.

I could honestly believe that Rocket, with his military and serious PvP background, believes that players will get organized outside of the game and thus provide a natural counter to PK activity. He's wrong though, because the vast majority of players are casual and more likely to stop playing than invest that amount of effort. Or maybe he pines for the day when it had a smaller and more hard core audience? We'll only really find out as the game evolves.

---

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.

No, it's whatever the designer allows you to do. But at the moment it most certainly is primarily a PvP game.

... It's just that some people thought it was about surviving a zombie apocalypse and are surprised to find the zombies barely feature after the first couple of hours.

[septuscap 42]

He's wrong though' date=' because the vast majority of players are casual and more likely to stop playing than invest that amount of effort.

[/quote']

No most people will just whine and bitch on the forums until the devs give them god mode PvE-only servers or some such nonsense.

Luckily there are players who actually make shit happen instead of crying incessantly.

[Vitzo 0]

I know not everyone here is a fan of the whole "bandit concept" but for the ones that are and work as an organized team' date=' this game is too good.

[/quote']

Are you organizing this team in game or out of game?

When playing solo shooting everyone on sight removes all the player interaction and I found it boring after awhile. It removes the special sauce in DayZ. I've been having a lot more fun by not doing it lately, even if I'm dying 10x as often heh.

On the other hand I enjoy playing that way when I'm metagaming it by Skyping with a bunch of friends. They replace the element that is missing from the game when you SoS everyone.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

*Game* mechanics are generally crafted with an intent as to the gameplay they encourage or discourage.

That's because games are generally not sandbox games. Very few are' date=' in fact.

So yes, it's common for rules and mechanics to go hand-in-hand. Sandbox games divorce the two. That's kind of what the name "sandbox" means. Nobody tells you what to do in the sandbox - you get toys and sand (mechanics) and they can be used in certain ways (shovels for digging, buckets for collecting sand) but you can use them in whatever way you wand and nobody's going to tell you that's wrong (buckets for building castles).

I could honestly believe that Rocket, with his military and serious PvP background, believes that players will get organized outside of the game and thus provide a natural counter to PK activity. He's wrong though

Except, he's not. It's happening right now. There are literally posts right here on this very forum from people seeking groups or groups seeking new players. Servers everywhere are publishing TS info in an attempt to gain new recruits. Even the hardcore ARMA clans are taking in new blood as a result of DayZ. How can you just sit and deny it's happening? So silly.

because the vast majority of players are casual and more likely to stop playing than invest that amount of effort.

Okay, so our options are to change DayZ to cater to the "vast majority" of casual players who don't want to put effort into a game - in the process dumbing and watering it down to the point where it will no longer be Dayz... or accept the fact that maybe DayZ isn't designed to appeal to the vast majority of casual players and let them go find a different game to play while an incredibly intense, committed and fervent following remains with DayZ - the people willing to put in the effort and create an amazing new kind of zombie game.

I personally prefer the latter option myself. The 'vast majority' have their games already. Why should we let them influence DayZ's development until it just becomes a glorified sequel to Resident Evil or something?

... It's just that some people thought it was about surviving a zombie apocalypse and are surprised to find the zombies barely feature after the first couple of hours.

This is bunk, first of all. I'm on Day 19 and my partner Day 32 and zombies are a factor in everything we do. We sill need ammo. We still need to help our other friends who aren't quite as established as us gear up and find the basic supplies. We still need to search for vehicles and vehicle parts, and fuel cans - and gas stations to refuel them. Helicopter crashes are a goddamn zombie dance party. We spend more ammunition and medical supplies every day on zombies and zombie-related injuries than we do on players. Zombies remain a factor indefinitely.

Second, if people came into DayZ expecting zombies w/o a bunch of PvP then it can only be because they dove in without reading a single shred of information about the game or the experience and just made a bunch of baseless assumptions because "It has zombies it must be like all those other zombie games."

Meanwhile every blurb or article or interview I read before I decided to play DayZ stated definitively and without a doubt that you would find death at the hands of players a far more common experience than death by zombies. And this was back in the bandit skin days when supposedly the game was some kind of cooperative heaven on earth.

[Vitzo 0]

So yes' date=' it's common for rules and mechanics to go hand-in-hand. Sandbox games divorce the two. That's kind of what the name "sandbox" means. Nobody tells you what to do in the sandbox - you get toys and sand (mechanics) and they can be used in certain ways (shovels for digging, buckets for collecting sand) but you can use them in whatever way you wand and nobody's going to tell you that's wrong (buckets for building castles).

[/quote']

A sandox just means players decide their own win condition. Mechanics still drive everything. Game mechanics are often designed to affect or change player behavior in sandbox games. Rocket does it all the time.

You can't imagine mechanics that would influence player behavior? Reputation and trust networks. Rebuilding cities. One respawn per day limit or instant respawn right where you died. Being able to recognize a player by sight or not recognize them. Can one player do everything, heal, engineering, etc, or does it require more than working together?

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

You can't imagine mechanics that would influence player behavior?

Yes. In the same way that holding a shovel influences my decision to dig in the sand. But' date=' in a sandbox, nobody's going to come along and put a dunce cap on me if I decide to use that shovel to do something else.

There's a difference between influencing by creating mechanics that CAN be used to behave in a certain way, and [b']controlling behavior by adding mechanics that actively 'encourage' or 'discourage' particular behaviors with arbitrary rewards and punishments. Once one behavior is acceptable and another punishable, you are no longer simply influencing behavior, you're dictating it - and you've crossed a line that sandbox games aren't supposed to cross.

The bandit skin crossed that line. That's why it's removal was the right step for DayZ to remain true to its sandbox nature.

[Cormac McCarthy 15]

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

[/quote']

are you retarded, your telling me i could have avoided being killed that time i was running thru the forest in the middle of the night, and got sniped from so far away i didnt hear the shot. i didnt have NVGs but he must have. thats avoidable? i was in the damn woods.

you just havent been killed as much as me, youve been lucky. just wait till you are looting someone and then you just fall over dead. avoid that shit and come back to me.

[glowfow@hotmail.com 55]

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

[/quote']

are you retarded, your telling me i could have avoided being killed that time i was running thru the forest in the middle of the night, and got sniped from so far away i didnt hear the shot. i didnt have NVGs but he must have. thats avoidable? i was in the damn woods.

you just havent been killed as much as me, youve been lucky. just wait till you are looting someone and then you just fall over dead. avoid that shit and come back to me.

Maybe he was referring to some of the alt-f4 magic ;)

[Vitzo 0]

You can't imagine mechanics that would influence player behavior?

Yes. In the same way that holding a shovel influences my decision to dig in the sand. But' date=' in a sandbox, nobody's going to come along and put a dunce cap on me if I decide to use that shovel to do something else.

There's a difference between influencing by creating mechanics that CAN be used to behave in a certain way, and [b']controlling behavior by adding mechanics that actively 'encourage' or 'discourage' particular behaviors with arbitrary rewards and punishments. Once one behavior is acceptable and another punishable, you are no longer simply influencing behavior, you're dictating it - and you've crossed a line that sandbox games aren't supposed to cross.

The bandit skin crossed that line. That's why it's removal was the right step for DayZ to remain true to its sandbox nature.

There aren't rules to making a sandbox games are 'supposed' to cross. Anything can be a sandbox game if there is no victory condition. Every time you shoot a player fireworks could fire from your player's backpack and write your name and your killcount in sparkling giant red letters across the sky it would still be a sandbox game.

The general question you guys were debating was are there game mechanics that could be implemented that would influence the way players act, specifically with respect to kill rates and shoot on sight.

And there are tons. Practically everything would. Adding in oodles of late game stuff for players certainly would because there isn't that much to do once you mastered the basics now except increase your kill count. It is valuable to discuss how such mechanics influence things.

One simple example: you can watch someone shoot your friend at close range and you probably can't recognize the same player if you meet them later because the models aren't unique enough. Try and communicate to another player what that guy looks like and have them track them down? Essentially impossible. There's no way to communicate trust or distrust of people. That's a mechanic.

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

I'm all for building that settlement but it would be a joke without the constant threat of pvp. Pk'ers should have fun and do their own thing because that's what makes surviving a real challenge and fun for everyone else.

---

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

[/quote']

are you retarded, your telling me i could have avoided being killed that time i was running thru the forest in the middle of the night, and got sniped from so far away i didnt hear the shot. i didnt have NVGs but he must have. thats avoidable? i was in the damn woods.

you just havent been killed as much as me, youve been lucky. just wait till you are looting someone and then you just fall over dead. avoid that shit and come back to me.

You have to think like a sniper in order to avoid being hit by one.

What was the topography like at your location (elevation, terrain features, etc compared with surrounding areas).

[TheMachine 803]

Let's talk facts here.

The fact is, the people who aren't happy with the fact that they can be killed by anyone at any time will NEVER be happy until the game is sanitised in such a way that they can't be killed any time, EVER.

They only want the fight on their terms, they want artificial, game implemented safety barrier to stop another playing killing them.

They can ooh and ahh all they like, but essentially that is what they're asking for.

That's what every other sandbox PvP game turns into if they get their way.

And they're always so damn smug about it too, lots of little smiley faces on forum to accent their glee about their cowardice.

"Can't wait until the devs carpet bomb pvp, oh the pvp crowd are going to be crying on forums :D :D :D"

:rolleyes:

The fun about this game is that if you want safety, you can EASILY have it, you just need to make it yourself.

No moaning and crying about what's hard about it, just figure out how to make it happen.

I'd bet i've died and lost more high grade stuff than these people too.

I was walking through the woods at night with my NVG on, I got shot from god knows where (this was way north), died after I got knocked down and bled out.

My first thought wasn't 'lets go on forum and complain', it was 'that guy is a fucking ninja'.

It was fun.

I hope it happens again.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

There aren't rules to making a sandbox games are 'supposed' to cross. Anything can be a sandbox game if there is no victory condition.

I really don't want to argue semantics' date=' but that's not really the defining factor. A sandbox game can have victory conditions provided it does not define specifically how or when I reach them, and provided reaching them does not prematurely terminate my play. Whether you are 'sandboxy' or not depends not on whether your game has an ultimate goal, but on how specifically you define and codify the one "right" method of reaching that goal. Again, it's really about rules vs. mechanics and defined paths vs. open-world roaming.

Every time you shoot a player fireworks could fire from your player's backpack and write your name and your killcount in sparkling giant red letters across the sky it would still be a sandbox game.

It could, you're right. Though probably not a very good one. As long as that mechanic functioned the same for everyone regardless of their prior behavior and didn't serve to punish only a particular group of players for behaving in a particular way, it wouldn't necessarily cross the "sandbox" line.

And there are tons. Practically everything would. Adding in oodles of late game stuff for players certainly would because there isn't that much to do once you mastered the basics now except increase your kill count. It is valuable to discuss how such mechanics influence things.

Right. Good example of a mechanic that's not a rule. Because if you added this, playerscould use it to target murderers, but murderers could also use it to take pictures of players and hunt them down over and over again making their lives miserable, or setting up murder meta-games like "don't kill two people with glasses in a row" or "only blondes today" and all of a sudden the forum would be flooded with people complaining that models should be less unique so this sort of "griefing" would not be possible.

So I think we agree? But you still don't seem quite clear on the differentiation. Let me spell it out using your example:

Making models more unique: Gives players the power to enforce their own rules and regulations by identifying bandits and fighting back. Good. That means the players now have the means to solve their own problems.

Making bandits all wear the same suit: Takes the power out of the hands of players. Now the "computer" is enforcing the law by using an algorithm to decide who is naughty and who is nice. The players are no longer making the decision. Bad. Not sandboxy.

Is it more clear now?

[disastr 7]

its all good making teams and stuff but stop pking the new players all you are doing is making new players quit. Sure right now the community is growing but if ppl keep getting pkd its gonna start to drop off. And this community will be the equivalent of HoN and im sure no one wants that

I don't fight down by the Ocean' date=' I fight up North, usually by that time players are fairly knowledgeable of the game. If they die and that's their first time run, they made it pretty far and it was a lesson learned for them.

I've been killed many times and it only makes me a better player.

[hr']

The entire reason why this game has such amazing replay value is because of the PVP aspect. If you removed it, the game would become boring and predictable so fast.

Any game that has player encounters that have infinite replay value, such as counter-strike - the game never dies and the content is infinite and user generated. Anybody that is looking just to kill Zombies, you need to learn to adapt against players. Once you do, you will realize your playing the ultimate Zombie Apocalypse Game.

[Powermolch 3]

its all good making teams and stuff but stop pking the new players all you are doing is making new players quit. Sure right now the community is growing but if ppl keep getting pkd its gonna start to drop off. And this community will be the equivalent of HoN and im sure no one wants that

I don't fight down by the Ocean' date=' I fight up North, usually by that time players are fairly knowledgeable of the game. If they die and that's their first time run, they made it pretty far and it was a lesson learned for them.

I've been killed many times and it only makes me a better player.

[/quote']

My expirience is the same. Most serious gunfights are far away from the coast, most people don't even bother to go down the coast to slaughter newbies. We rarely raid Cherno or Electro, it often means extreme danger for us too. And DayZ Rule Nr1 is SURVIVE. Do what you want - kill, repair, build tent cities, go hunt, raid Airfields - but - SURVIVE at all Costs.

And Gunfights u the North are mostly more thrilling and rewarding.

[Rakkasan 23]

How about you immerse yourself in Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead? Different story when there are no zombies in the mix and neccessity to, I dont know, eat and drink. If you are playing this game because you think it was made to PvP then you are a true idiot. This is the "anti" game. The PvP is an element of the game, not the purpose. Takes absolutely zero skill to kill a player with no weapon, and if you need a team to do that, you sir ride a special short yellow bus.

[disastr 7]

How about you immerse yourself in Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead? Different story when there are no zombies in the mix and neccessity to' date=' I dont know, eat and drink. If you are playing this game because you think it was made to PvP then you are a true idiot. This is the "anti" game. The PvP is an element of the game, not the purpose. Takes absolutely zero skill to kill a player with no weapon, and if you need a team to do that, you sir ride a special short yellow bus.

[/quote']

I think you need to read through the posts before you respond. If you notice, the most experienced PVP players, hunt each other up North, not down South where all the newer players spawn.

The rewards come from, stealing a groups vehicle, tents, gear such as Night Vision which is very rare and so on. The mix between PVP and surviving is the whole reason why this game is successful. There is no reason to complain about PVP, considering it's one of the main elements to the game, along side with the Zombies.

[Vitzo 0]

There aren't rules to making a sandbox games are 'supposed' to cross. Anything can be a sandbox game if there is no victory condition.

I really don't want to argue semantics' date=' but that's not really the defining factor. A sandbox game can have victory conditions provided it does not define specifically how or when I reach them, and provided reaching them does not prematurely terminate my play. Whether you are 'sandboxy' or not depends not on whether your game has an ultimate goal, but on how specifically you define and codify the one "right" method of reaching that goal. Again, it's really about rules vs. mechanics and defined paths vs. open-world roaming.

Every time you shoot a player fireworks could fire from your player's backpack and write your name and your killcount in sparkling giant red letters across the sky it would still be a sandbox game.

It could, you're right. Though probably not a very good one. As long as that mechanic functioned the same for everyone regardless of their prior behavior and didn't serve to punish only a particular group of players for behaving in a particular way, it wouldn't necessarily cross the "sandbox" line.

And there are tons. Practically everything would. Adding in oodles of late game stuff for players certainly would because there isn't that much to do once you mastered the basics now except increase your kill count. It is valuable to discuss how such mechanics influence things.

Right. Good example of a mechanic that's not a rule. Because if you added this, playerscould use it to target murderers, but murderers could also use it to take pictures of players and hunt them down over and over again making their lives miserable, or setting up murder meta-games like "don't kill two people with glasses in a row" or "only blondes today" and all of a sudden the forum would be flooded with people complaining that models should be less unique so this sort of "griefing" would not be possible.

So I think we agree? But you still don't seem quite clear on the differentiation. Let me spell it out using your example:

Making models more unique: Gives players the power to enforce their own rules and regulations by identifying bandits and fighting back. Good. That means the players now have the means to solve their own problems.

Making bandits all wear the same suit: Takes the power out of the hands of players. Now the "computer" is enforcing the law by using an algorithm to decide who is naughty and who is nice. The players are no longer making the decision. Bad. Not sandboxy.

Is it more clear now?

The part I disagree with is that mechanics must avoid having have any intent to be "for" or "against" anything, they just exist in a zen state of objectivity. From the point of the view of the guy deciding what to implement in the game this is silly. Mechanics are going to change the way players play, they are going to 'punish' certain play styles and 'reward' others, and there's no point in ignoring that. It can be fun to put in mechanics you have no idea how people will react to, for sure, but most of these you expect to tweak at a later date in certain specific directions if things seem to be sucking.

I don't agree with your characterization of the bandit skin as something distinct from other mechanics in the game. Players could very well see it as a badge of honor. Nobody is telling how to react to it. It's just a skin, one more bit of information. A bandit skin isn't telling players that they are not doing the "right" thing. To exaggerate the example imagine how player behavior might change if the skin grew darker as their kill count increased. I bet players would fight tooth and nail to get the darkest suit possible. Now I don't personally like the bandit skin but the general idea of this discussion was whether we should discuss mechanics being put in specifically to modify player behavior in certain directions -- and I think that is perfectly fine.

It makes sense to target player behavior changes with mechanics. You might find that players never talk and think about adding more tasks that require coordination to accomplish. You might find that everyone is living peacefully and nobody is fighting so you want to increase the scarcity of resources to give them something to fight over.

Any change, any mechanic, is going to punish certain behaviors and certain types of players and reward others. There's nothing special about the behavior status quo that the devs should go out of their way to effect all players equally.

Every time you shoot a player fireworks could fire from your player's backpack and write your name and your killcount in sparkling giant red letters across the sky it would still be a sandbox game.

It could' date=' you're right. Though probably not a very good one. As long as that mechanic functioned the same for everyone regardless of their prior behavior and didn't serve to punish only a particular group of players for behaving in a particular way, it wouldn't necessarily cross the "sandbox" line.

[/quote']

Even fireworks went off only for certain playstyles or groups, is it a reward or a punishment? On the one hand it's totally rad -- epic fireworks in the sky with your player name! On the other hand you've given away your position to anyone remotely nearby.

[Rakkasan 23]

Dont need to read the previous posts. All I need to read is the original post. The title of it says it all. "This is the best PvP game ever created." Again, teamwork to kill bandits/survivors is fine and actually fun, but if this game was meant for straight PvP then there would be no zombies or need to scavenge, anything.

[Kageru 18]

The part I disagree with is that mechanics must avoid having have any intent to be "for" or "against" anything' date=' they just exist in a zen state of objectivity. From the point of the view of the guy deciding what to implement in the game this is silly. Mechanics are going to change the way players play, they are going to 'punish' certain play styles and 'reward' others, and there's no point in ignoring that. It can be fun to put in mechanics you have no idea how people will react to, for sure, but most of these you expect to tweak at a later date in certain specific directions if things seem to be sucking.

[/quote']

It's helps if you consider the intent. "It's a sandbox game", when it's not since every public quote suggests the designer has clear intents in how he wants to direct the gaming experience. "mechanics should be neutral" when in a game there is no such thing. What it really means is the person likes the game as it is and wants to avoid being limited or restricted from enjoying it in that fashion.

Then again most of the mechanics do seem to be focused on enabling PvP so maybe they are right. And I have to admit they are right in that if you remove the threat of PK or enjoyment of PvP the game is shallow as a puddle and largely sorta dull once you work out the basics.

It will be interesting to see whether the game evolves past that.