A Little Ingame Humanity?

[kroms001 99]

In every aspect of history, humanity has always risen to fight together when it is in danger.  DayZ Stand Alone is a great game, but there are a lot of aspects missing that need to be incorporated in my opinion.  This is the zombie apocalypse, and it is also a game - but it doesn't reflect upon human nature enough.  DZSA is in contrast to what would actually happen in such a horrific scenario.  Sure, people would shoot each other, some out of spite, out of rage or whatever - but not to the extent that they do in DayZ.  This needs to be fixed. 

Unfortunately DayZ reflects that most of humanity has become insane uncaring killers, like the Zeds we all face in the game.  The Z apocalypse is about the trials and tribulations of humanity becoming primal and resorting to trying to survive a harsh environment without any of civilizations comforts... not becoming a mass murderer.  I am sure this has been brought up before, but I just wanted to put my two cents in. 

There are a lot of us out there (even some KOS people) that are getting a little bored of just outright killing.  Make the game interesting, make it where people want to keep their character and care for their character - but also make it where if people want to kill someone, they can do it - but just like in the real world there would be consequences.  Right now, encountering real players is about the same as encountering a Zed.  Sure, some people are playing nice - but you can't differentiate between a nice "civilized" player and a KOS bandit.

[Geckofrog7 1168]

Listen here...nothing will convince the kos robots to stop being cowards.

Nothing!  :D

Edited February 26, 2014 by Geckofrog7

[muddyraccoon 176]

Altough I am going to use the Alpha argument, that will not explain away KoS.  KoS is here to stay.  And throughout history humanity has never once unified against a common threat.  Humanity may, in small numbers, unify against humanity.  War is in our DNA.  If it ever became humans vs. something else, humans will still find a way to kill other humans. 

[xRann 126]

Altough I am going to use the Alpha argument, that will not explain away KoS.  KoS is here to stay.  And throughout history humanity has never once unified against a common threat.  Humanity may, in small numbers, unify against humanity.  War is in our DNA.  If it ever became humans vs. something else, humans will still find a way to kill other humans. 

^this, agreed. I haven't made this argument here, but I have in the past and that is this. Throughout ALL human history "civilized" people have committed atrocities time and time again. What makes you so sure we're a civilized species?

Edited February 26, 2014 by xRann

[Monkfish (DayZ) 339]

KoS is a problem now because there's mostly fuck all to do in the game. It will reduce naturally once the game gets properly hard and there are far more "end game" objectives to work towards. Then all the teenagers run back crying to whatever cookie-cutter shooter it is they came from.

[Geckofrog7 1168]

I think it Fallout says it the best: "War. War never changes."

Which means that, when the world has all but ended, when all government has been destroyed, even when humanity has every reason to band together against a common threat...they don't.

Because war...war never changes.

[djporternz 644]

I think it Fallout says it the best: "War. War never changes."

Which means that, when the world has all but ended, when all government has been destroyed, even when humanity has every reason to band together against a common threat...they don't.

Because war...war never changes.

 I'll disagree. But grouping together will only occur if there is a COMMON enemy. As long as you can point at something and call it THEM as opposed to the US over here, you will have a cohesive group. Once that THEM is contained or eliminated then people will start looking for another THEM to target.

 

KoS simply ignores the US part of this argument and replaces it with ME. In RL this is tantamount to suicide. But this is a game and there are no lasting penalties for jumping out of the low end of the gene pool.

[kroms001 99]

Altough I am going to use the Alpha argument, that will not explain away KoS.  KoS is here to stay.  And throughout history humanity has never once unified against a common threat.  Humanity may, in small numbers, unify against humanity.  War is in our DNA.  If it ever became humans vs. something else, humans will still find a way to kill other humans. 

 

^this, agreed. I haven't made this argument here, but I have in the past and that is this. Throughout ALL human history "civilized" people have committed atrocities time and time again. What makes you so sure we're a civilized species?

 

So, what both of you are saying is that if this happened IRL , instead of finding people to "help" survive, you would just kill them? What I am trying to make people understand is, while yes this is a video game - there would be consequences for you just indiscriminately shooting whoever you wished.  No, we are far from a civilized species when it comes to war, but when it comes to greater threats we band together and help each other out, there are plenty of instances of that: Fires, earth quakes, tornados etc.  Also, we are not talking about war; which is where you are both getting your humanity issues messed up.  This is a nightmare scenario about dead, flesh eating creatures attacking anything resembling a living human (so there is a direct distinction from being dead or alive).  Bring up war all you want - that argument is invalid because of the survival aspects of all humanity being attacked by flesh eaters rather than each other.  The "Mad Max" scenario both of you are envisioning about killing everyone/everything on sight simply wouldn't happen with people who are mentally sound.  The mentally sound people would obviously band together (because strength in numbers) and kill the mentally challenged people shooting at everything.  So logically, the arguments supporting a KOS approach IRL completely fail. 

Sure, people will war - and towns/villages could raid each other etc, but the KOS just because issue simply wouldn't happen unless everyone left on earth was a complete psychopath.  It draws away from the realism aspect - a lot.

[iBane 381]

You're premise is flawed.  When you presuppose that IRL: "...people would shoot each other, some out of spite, out of rage or whatever - but not to the extent that they do in DayZ," you couldn't be more wrong.  

 

When resources are tight and people are desperate they will do whatever it takes to survive.  They will move to the dark side of human behavior farther, faster, and more often than players do in DayZ.  DayZ is a game...if people are really starving or a really in fear for their lives they will react much more intensely than what you find in a game.  

 

All that being said, people don't really need the threat of starvation and death to abandoned any sense of human decency.  If the systems of consequence are removed from their society they will murder, loot, and pillage with reckless abandon.  I refer you to New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina...wanton theft, property destruction, and lawlessness because the good citizens knew there was no police force or legal system in place to stop them.  Once the consequences were gone, so went their reluctance to break the law.

 

So no, DayZ isn't an excessive representation of the dark side of humanity...in fact the opposite is true...it UNDER-represents how selfish, vicious, and murderous humans will actually be when times are desperate and there are no systems of consequence to deter them.  

[xRann 126]

So, what both of you are saying is that if this happened IRL , instead of finding people to "help" survive, you would just kill them? What I am trying to make people understand is, while yes this is a video game - there would be consequences for you just indiscriminately shooting whoever you wished.  No, we are far from a civilized species when it comes to war, but when it comes to greater threats we band together and help each other out, there are plenty of instances of that: Fires, earth quakes, tornados etc.  Also, we are not talking about war; which is where you are both getting your humanity issues messed up.  This is a nightmare scenario about dead, flesh eating creatures attacking anything resembling a living human (so there is a direct distinction from being dead or alive).  Bring up war all you want - that argument is invalid because of the survival aspects of all humanity being attacked by flesh eaters rather than each other.  The "Mad Max" scenario both of you are envisioning about killing everyone/everything on sight simply wouldn't happen with people who are mentally sound.  The mentally sound people would obviously band together (because strength in numbers) and kill the mentally challenged people shooting at everything.  So logically, the arguments supporting a KOS approach IRL completely fail. 

Sure, people will war - and towns/villages could raid each other etc, but the KOS just because issue simply wouldn't happen unless everyone left on earth was a complete psychopath.  It draws away from the realism aspect - a lot.

 

I say, you give too much credit...perhaps small groups would manage but in a situation like this an individual, even of sound mind, would care about themselves and DIRECT relations and loved ones above and before anyone/thing else. It is quite realistic regardless of how you attempt to tie it to war when I made no direct link to war/warfare and just atrocities done by "civilized" people with a "me", "us", and "them" mentality throughout human history. I generalized only that our species, as a whole, is not by any means civilized. Our base instincts and animalistic nature override any perceived amount of humanity you think we, as a species, even have.

Edited February 26, 2014 by xRann

[Pvt_Larry (DayZ) 98]

I'm just going to point out the example of hurricane Katrina. People were shooting each other out in the flooded streets of New Orleans over flat screen TVs that they were looting and couldn't even use. Cops joined in. To "restore order" military contractors (or mercenaries if you prefer) from Blackwater rolled in without permission from the government. These guys were outfitted with assault rifles and full kevlar armor, and told people that they had the right to kill in order to uphold the law.

 

In times of chaos, most people don't rise to the challenge, most will panic and do whatever they can to benefit themselves. Ever read Lord of the Flies?

[kroms001 99]

You're premise is flawed.  When you presuppose that IRL: "...people would shoot each other, some out of spite, out of rage or whatever - but not to the extent that they do in DayZ," you couldn't be more wrong.  

 

When resources are tight and people are desperate they will do whatever it takes to survive.  They will move to the dark side of human behavior farther, faster, and more often than players do in DayZ.  DayZ is a game...if people are really starving or a really in fear for their lives they will react much more intensely than what you find in a game.  

 

All that being said, people don't really need the threat of starvation and death to abandoned any sense of human decency.  If the systems of consequence are removed from their society they will murder, loot, and pillage with reckless abandon.  I refer you to New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina...wanton theft, property destruction, and lawlessness because the good citizens knew there was no police force or legal system in place to stop them.  Once the consequences were gone, so went their reluctance to break the law.

 

So no, DayZ isn't an excessive representation of the dark side of humanity...in fact the opposite is true...it UNDER-represents how selfish, vicious, and murderous humans will actually be when times are desperate and there are no systems of consequence to deter them.  

 

Actually, compare the darker side to the people who were helping each other out - and I think you'll get my point.  How many people died from bullet holes then drowning?  Not a lot what, 1 or two? If that?  How many people gave a woman and her child water, or formula?  How many people helped the elderly get nourishment?  You didn't see that?  Or are you just focused on the negative smaller aspects of inhumanity?  Because, all of those people helping each other completely dwarfed the foolish ones trying to kill each other.  Sure, there were small reports here and there about somebody shooting at someone else, but out of the tens of thousands of people caught up in that disaster - did thousands die because of roving bands of bandits or did a couple of people die because they were idiots?  What I saw were tens of thousands of people trapped, helping each other out when they could.  Don't know what media you tuned into, but it sure is an interesting perspective on that event. 

 

"The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was characterized by extensive reporting of looting, violence, shooting against rescuers, murder and rape. While some criminal acts did occur, such as the emptying of an entire Wal Mart,^[42] many reports were also exaggerated, inflated, or simply fabricated. Several news organizations went on to issue retractions"

 

and

"The media reports did fuel a paranoid anxiety in many homeowners who decided to take up arms to defend their property. Investigations carried out in the years following the hurricane turned out evidence of violence by white vigilante groups against evacuees and survivors, usually young black men."

 

Straight from the Wiki - so I guess it is how you really want to look at the story; and what history you want to actually remember.  Remember this though, there are not a lot of valid reports of actual homocides that took place after the hurricane.  So, in my opinion... humanity helped each other more than it went against each other.  So, yes - all of the people quoting Hurricane Katrina... do a little research and you will find that humanity still prevailed, way above all the negativity that you so ever wish to be present.

[kroms001 99]

I'm just going to point out the example of hurricane Katrina. People were shooting each other out in the flooded streets of New Orleans over flat screen TVs that they were looting and couldn't even use. Cops joined in. To "restore order" military contractors (or mercenaries if you prefer) from Blackwater rolled in without permission from the government. These guys were outfitted with assault rifles and full kevlar armor, and told people that they had the right to kill in order to uphold the law.

 

In times of chaos, most people don't rise to the challenge, most will panic and do whatever they can to benefit themselves. Ever read Lord of the Flies?

Have you looked up any statistics about Hurricane Katrina?  Because it really sounds like you are making a lot of things up. LOL.  Sure people looted TVs and all kinds of stuff, but how many people were shooting each other in the tens of thousands of people that were trapped?  Please, tell me.

 

Where did the people panic and start shooting each other, and - how many died from homocide compaired to how many were sharing fresh water and food?  Go ahead, Google is your friend (not Blackwater).

[brazorf 46]

I agree with kroms001. I'm from Italy, i will use an earthquake we had in L'Aquila 5 years ago as an example, where something near 100k people lost anything they had before.

After the event, there certainly were people pillaging and abusing all around. Let's say 100, 500, or even 1000 ok? Government lacked of support, but there

were plenty of non-profit or volunteer people bringing there food, blankets, and various stuff.

The vast majority of people tend to group and help each other when it comes to hard times.

 

Coming back in the topic, yeah this is a game, but i also feel that free shooting each other may soon become boring.

There is already a lot of fps games, with a better gameplay or action mechanics than dayz... what makes this game special

is not gettin a rifle/campering/shooting for a bean can. I think 2 major things would be needed

 

1) random shooters will and must exists, they're part of the game, but random shooting should have consequences. A silly example coming up to my mind is to inhibit them, for a certain time, to interact with other players (i.e. trade items). There are better solutions for sure.

2) someone said wise words before me, people group mostly for a common cause, and i can't see many common causes in game. It could eventually be something related to bases/houses, requiring more players to get them safe. 

Edited February 26, 2014 by brazorf

[CJFlint 357]

After playing DayZ SA for about a 100 hours plus, I came to the conclusion that DayZ is just like other pvp games were there a high cost of losing. When it comes to pvp. Same typpe of bullshit goes on. Just like the other ones I played there is ALWAYS tons of complete ass hat dick heads that play (people who prey on the weak, take easy kills and wreck unsuspecting players game play). They are not even good enough to be bullys in real life so they do it in a game lol

 

Just like the other pvp games there's harping on the forums about these ass hats. No matter how much you bitch, preach and try to think of game mechanic changes, it will not fix a fucking thing. They will still be there. 

 

So the best thing to do is figure out were they hang out most the time, either avoid it or hunt them

 

The best thing to do is to practice, and become a decent pvper. Learn the tactics, and the game mechanic exploits. What I always find after playing enough to become half way decent, is most of the people who do stuff like, preying on unarmed player. Is that they really much suck and its the only thing they know how to do. They arent thee sharpest pencils in the box either. They will run in any hint of a fair fight. This goes for just about every pvp game I have played. 

 

DayZ SA is in a pretty buggy Alpha state, so buggy in fact I decided to stop playing until they do the next big patch. When ever the fuck that is. I prefer they fix some of the game killing bugs 1st and for most. After playing for a couple weeks I figured out that pretty much in DayZ the end game is PvP. You run around looting get the military gear, and weapons. Then you go pvp. There just isn't enough meat in the surival part of it yet to make it an end game. After running around collecting things on a few different lives, then doing pvp and giving fresh spawns food (which sometimes they turn out to be ungreatful). I thought to my self, "WTF now!? whats the point?" Theres also these really fucking lame death bugs that they gotta fix! The map is exactly the same is ARMA 2 only with new buildings. As a matter of fact I took up a helicopter in ARMA 2 and flew around on the default map. Its the same fucking map pretty much, and the graffics are not any better really. Just a few new buildings, and houses you can go in. So sometimes I wonder why is this really so popular anyways??

 

Honestly I wouldn't really give a crap if it all takes a nose dive and fails. I'll just go back and play arma 2 lol

Edited February 26, 2014 by CJFlint

[xRann 126]

I agree with kroms001. I'm from Italy, i will use an earthquake we had in L'Aquila 5 years ago as an example, where something near 100k people lost anything they had before.

After the event, there certainly were people pillaging and abusing all around. Let's say 100, 500, or even 1000 ok? Government lacked of support, but there

were plenty of non-profit or volunteer people bringing there food, blankets, and various stuff.

The vast majority of people tend to group and help each other when it comes to hard times.

The huge difference is that your example, Katrina, and any other singular event has been localized. We're not talking about a temporary breakdown, but a complete breakdown. This is a major, world altering, difference. With no leadership or organization able to assist and supply aid indefinitely the outcome would have been drastically different and unfortunately, I fear, much more violent due to diminishing supplies and the chaos associated with no end in sight.

Edited February 26, 2014 by xRann

[kroms001 99]

The huge difference is that your example, Katrina, and any other singular event has been localized. We're not talking about a temporary breakdown, but a complete breakdown. This is a major, world altering, difference. With no leadership or organization able to assist and supply aid indefinitely the outcome would have been drastically different and unfortunately, I fear, much more violent due to diminishing supplies and the chaos associated with no end in sight.

 

Actually, you don't know that it would be a complete breakdown.  Military and some leadership could still be in tact in some areas, as also militia groups would arise to "maintain order."  There would always be order out of the chaos no matter how we perceive this scenario.  Some areas would be under "bandit/warlord" control and others under "Zombie horde" and yet others under a barely functioning government/militia/ - Structure is needed to give people an "end in sight" and closure.  There is no end in site for survivors running around the wilderness by themselves shooting at others and killing indescriminantly.  It makes no sense in real world applications, and shows how still this game is very much into the Alpha stage.  People are social animals for the most part, they don't like to go at things alone - especially surviving.  People want others around them in times of need, and unfortunately much of the online experience is exactly the opposite. 

 

Put hordes of hundreds of zombies into the mix, even tens of thousands of zombies wandering from town to town consuming anything in it's wake - and the KOS people will quit out of frustration for not being able to cope with a world where team work is survival.

[kroms001 99]

So sometimes I wonder why is this really so popular anyways??

 

Honestly I wouldn't really give a crap if it all takes a nose dive and fails. I'll just go back and play arma 2 lol

 

 

 

Which is why we as players in a game that is an Alpha have to get the developers to make something so much more than a pvp game - make it count.  If I wanted PVP - I wouldn't go the zombie route, that is just kinda... stupid to be honest.  Think about it: Dead people vs. the living, yet the living are killing themselves quicker than the zombies can?  There would really have to be a backstory to that - like some crazed country developed a weapon that created flesh eating zombies and you are the invading force and all of the other players (who are also attacking each other) are the enemy (LOL - it still doesn't make sense).  I do love all of the KOS people defending KOS illogically.  Kinda funny tbh.

 

"but.... but.... Hurricane Katrina" <--- lulz there were more people helping each other than harming each other, like 99.9% of the people - that .1% is what these KOS peeps are focused on, and it isn't justified at all.

[xRann 126]

Actually, you don't know that it would be a complete breakdown.  Military and some leadership could still be in tact in some areas, as also militia groups would arise to "maintain order."  There would always be order out of the chaos no matter how we perceive this scenario.  Some areas would be under "bandit/warlord" control and others under "Zombie horde" and yet others under a barely functioning government/militia/ - Structure is needed to give people an "end in sight" and closure.  There is no end in site for survivors running around the wilderness by themselves shooting at others and killing indescriminantly.  It makes no sense in real world applications, and shows how still this game is very much into the Alpha stage.  People are social animals for the most part, they don't like to go at things alone - especially surviving.  People want others around them in times of need, and unfortunately much of the online experience is exactly the opposite. 

 

Put hordes of hundreds of zombies into the mix, even tens of thousands of zombies wandering from town to town consuming anything in it's wake - and the KOS people will quit out of frustration for not being able to cope with a world where team work is survival.

Except in the case of this game, yes it is a complete breakdown. There are no governing agencies or organizations besides what we make. As for the real world analog, every vacum created by the absense of governing and lawful punishment is quickly pounced upon by violent men. I cite Somalia as a prime example along with many others, within the last two decades.

[kroms001 99]

Except in the case of this game, yes it is a complete breakdown. There are no governing agencies or organizations besides what we make. As for the real world analog, every vacum created by the absense of governing and lawful punishment is quickly pounced upon by violent men. I cite Somalia as a prime example along with many others, within the last two decades.

Yes, but even in Somalia whilst being a very unstable region of the world - you don't see every single person trying to kill each other.  You pretty much just won this debate for me.  Somalia is a very good example - warlords, government breakdown, and people fighting each other over resources.  Even in such a crazy environment where anarchy reigns supreme - you don't see tens of thousands of bodies piling up everywhere because people are killing each other with no remorse.  Rather, if you go against a faction/warlord etc - he exacts his own justice upon you/your village.  So, yeah - there is still a sense of "living."

 

Let us put all of that into the context of a zombie apocalypse - the survivors want to live, they are scared, they want to eat and be protected and find some sense of normalcy.  If someone woke up on some distant shore, yes - the first things they would look for are food and shelter, and if zombies were attacking them, their priority would also be to find a weapon.  I was just in game and saved two new spawns from getting eaten because they were being chased relentlessly by 3 zombies.  They had no weapons, no equipment - yet there are a bunch of players that would have not only shot the zombies; but also the players.  Seriously, where is the fun in that?  The thing that a lot of people seem to unfortunately not understand about the zombie apocalypse is that it is a play on humans retaining their humanity.  The game lacks that because of the people who play KOS.  In the zombie apocalypse - every story, every movie you see it is never about being "every man for himself," it is about surviving and the human condition adjusting to the event.  Yes, some will not be able to handle it - rob, loot, kill - but the majority would not kill everything in their sight; even in a complete breakdown - humans have been conditioned for thousands of years in maintaining order.  All the way back, deep within all of our ancestry, there is a gene that screams "I don't like this, let's make some rules about certain issues." 

 

Hell, even cavemen had rules and order: hunting, gathering.  So basically what everyone that is against the idea of putting some humanity in this game is saying is "this is just another PVP game with a few zombies in it." Which is sad, because as a previous poster already stated: there are plenty of PVP games that are way better than this - where you don't have to rummage around and survive.  This game, IMO isn't supposed to be completely 100% PVP, it is supposed to be a survival simulation with PVP aspects.  Eventually; if they don't change the PVP aspect and make it a bit more interesting, people are going to leave in droves.  Who wants to play the same scenario over and over and over?  You find yourself at the beach, you find food, water, weapons, fight zombies, kill a few people and eventually get killed by a sniper.  It will get old, really quick.  I am already seeing servers pop up "No KOS" and "No Bandits." 

Anyhow, thanks for the Somalia reference - it does prove my point completely.  Even in a broken down environment; humanity still exists.  You can have humanity without civilization.

[Valadain 270]

So, what both of you are saying is that if this happened IRL , instead of finding people to "help" survive, you would just kill them? What I am trying to make people understand is, while yes this is a video game - there would be consequences for you just indiscriminately shooting whoever you wished.  No, we are far from a civilized species when it comes to war, but when it comes to greater threats we band together and help each other out, there are plenty of instances of that: Fires, earth quakes, tornados etc.  Also, we are not talking about war; which is where you are both getting your humanity issues messed up.  This is a nightmare scenario about dead, flesh eating creatures attacking anything resembling a living human (so there is a direct distinction from being dead or alive).  Bring up war all you want - that argument is invalid because of the survival aspects of all humanity being attacked by flesh eaters rather than each other.  The "Mad Max" scenario both of you are envisioning about killing everyone/everything on sight simply wouldn't happen with people who are mentally sound.  The mentally sound people would obviously band together (because strength in numbers) and kill the mentally challenged people shooting at everything.  So logically, the arguments supporting a KOS approach IRL completely fail. 

Sure, people will war - and towns/villages could raid each other etc, but the KOS just because issue simply wouldn't happen unless everyone left on earth was a complete psychopath.  It draws away from the realism aspect - a lot.

 

Some people help others and some go on a looting rampage. Some kill. Some horde. Even the "mentally sound", when faced with banding together with people, will be wary of newcomers, protect their stuff, and probably kill if they must to survive.

 

The trouble with killing on sight, is you, having been killed, have no idea what the reason was. Did you just get popped by someone that is randomly killing or did a lone survivor kill you because you were carrying a gun and likely to come across them and they didn't feel confident they could control the situation?

 

I was playing solo at one point, heading to check out the north east air field, running the perimeter to ensure it was clear, when I saw a pair of legs poking out of a tree in front of me. The guy didn't realize I was there, so I had really two options. Kill him or walk away. Being solo, it wasn't really going to be possible to just rob him, no cuffs. I wasn't going to disarm him and run him around the air field in front of me as it would be too big of a distraction. So I sat there, aiming my gun at his head and decided to just go loot somewhere else and left. Honestly, I should have just killed him, but to him, it would have seemed like random KoS.

[xRann 126]

Anyhow, thanks for the Somalia reference - it does prove my point completely.  Even in a broken down environment; humanity still exists.  You can have humanity without civilization.

Only once the new victor steps forward laying out their rules, else it is everyone for themselves or in very small groups. You're making the jump very quickly from no rule to warlord governance and just missing the entire section in between. I'm not arguing our ability to find normalcy and adapt, but only that there is a progression and transition from one state to another and the game takes place in the void between.

 

The "KoS" argument or attempt to understand, define, limit, mitigate, or even categorize in any meaningful way is a lost cause. Too many factors come into play. There are those looking to just kill anything and you seem to think they are the majority, the ones always dealing death and killing you on what you believe is sight. I do not believe they are, as you have stated about human interaction in a similar situation, the majority. Just the ones you hear about, read about, have dealt with, or remember the most. There are simply too many factors involved in why someone makes the decisions they do, some not so much but generally speaking a multitude of factors create our decisions.

 

You're also forgetting that maybe 30% of the features of the game are in place. This is a huge reason pvp is the end goal, but don't mistake pvp for your notion of what "KoS" is. As more an more features are implemented people will have more to do rather than just pvp. However, as human interaction goes this game is very limited in body language and expression which constricts our ability to judge hostility or underlying motive. So, people will still kill to gain loot/gear/vehicles/whathaveyou and people will still kill to defend it because we're limited in our ability to interpret the player behind the avatars.

 

If you want to remove "KoS" or banditry you'll just have to wait for private hives, because people will always be able to kill you regardless of what header the server places in it's title. You could try 1pp servers and/or the experimental servers, I can tell you there are generally less people with the intent of just pvp. That's not to say it won't happen, you'll just find more non-hostile interactions to be more common. Many times I've ran into someone and we both size each other up, offer each other supplies, offer intel on looted and cleared areas, and head our separate ways. Much like I would assume would actually happen.

 

The abuse of 3pp is a huge motivator for people to simply kill indiscriminately because of the physical security it offers while using cover. And considering it allows for that abuse, and what I consider game-breaking playability, it comes with the territory that you will have more people killing from a secure hide. Limits to LoS goes out the window and so do most common or even advanced tactics while playing 3pp, the same cannot be said for 1pp.

[Wolfguarde 108]

 And throughout history humanity has never once unified against a common threat.

Hmm.

Let's see...

- Herd/Tribe development: common foe in the form of predators and competing individuals/groups. Significantly improved odds of survival and chances to breed, resulting in collective growth.

- Most historically relevant wars: common enemy in the form of another faction, group, or country acting to the detriment of one's own people. Eventually resulted in the unity of large bodies of people as nations of varying size. Resulted in growth, the mixing of ideas, and an enforced degree of tolerance for most integrated groups.

- Both our world wars: common enemy found in the form of a threat to culture or right to freedom of choice. Resulted in a near-complete unity of diplomatic standards and international opening of borders, allowing people to intermingle and blur the borders between races and cultures alike.

All of these cases play on your point about us being coded for war, and this is not necessarily an incorrect statement. But the idea that we have never banded together against a common foe is sweet, lovely bullshit. It is the easy path to act as if humanity has never done anything for itself when the truth is that every major step we have made throughout history (a great many of which I have skipped over) has involved us helping one another.

War is something we're very used to in our collective culture. But to go to war, you need a number of essentials, the most important of which are allies and enemies.

 

So, what both of you are saying is that if this happened IRL , instead of finding people to "help" survive, you would just kill them? What I am trying to make people understand is, while yes this is a video game - there would be consequences for you just indiscriminately shooting whoever you wished.  

 

-Snip-

Also, we are not talking about war; which is where you are both getting your humanity issues messed up.  This is a nightmare scenario about dead, flesh eating creatures attacking anything resembling a living human (so there is a direct distinction from being dead or alive).

 

You're not taking into account a few factors. There are people who, unconstrained by society, would be violent and possibly psychopathic. There are things that cannot be detected or treated by psychology, even with everything we've learned throughout the course of that field's development. Take into account the mitigated sense of responsibility/morality, and - most importantly - the distinct moral and spiritual damage, and shock, of discovering that the world has quite literally gone to hell. Losing not just your local comfort zone/material goods but everything you know and take for granted would take a massive toll on your sanity... both in the initial realisation and over the course of time should you survive.

This isn't to say you're completely wrong, of course. You're right in that a lot of people would still cling to the tatters of civility and band together where they can. It is human nature, as you or another poster has said. But there would be a lot of people who would kill or rob other survivors for the clothes on their back or the goods in their pack if they got the opportunity. What's more, given the lawless state of most of the world, most of them would probably get away with it. Bandits and zombies would be equally dire threats. People would band together, but even some among those would kill given the chance, or possibly crack and kill or wound as many people as they could before they get put down. The shock and hellish state of the world would take its toll on your mental state, and in all honesty, I think you would find a lot of people cracking or outright shattering under that pressure. Especially if they've lost family or partners over the course of time since the apocalypse took place.

 

The abuse of 3pp is a huge motivator for people to simply kill indiscriminately because of the physical security it offers while using cover.

No, it isn't. And this particular dead horse needs to stop finding its way into other suggestion threads. It stinks.

Now, onward to my response to the OP... DayZ is indeed about the trials of survival in a world overrun by zombies. However, you need to consider that one of those trials is the aforementioned bandits, psychopaths and lost folk whose circumstances or decisions have led them to lose their sense of morality or compassion for other people. It would happen. I mean no offence when I say that to expect otherwise is naive at best... there is good in humanity, but there is darkness as well. Of the two aspects, the one by far more suppressed in most people is darkness.

Some of those would wind up getting themselves killed off by others like them or survivors who manage to get the better of them. But in a lawless environment, you have the freedom to do whatever you can get away with. That's dangerous. The moral fabric of society might look stained and fragile as it is at the moment - life knows, none of our hands are clean in the world we live in - but when you consider what people are capable of when they don't have rules binding them, you'll understand. We have stood the test of time and survived intact thus far. If that were to snap, the world would change. It would become something unrecognisable.

Which is not to say that change would be permanent. We would lose our cohesion, our unity... but as another poster has pointed out, our natural tendency is to band together. We would start to recover after a time, once survivor groups begin to consolidate their resources, secure their living boundaries and establish communications with one another. Weird as it might sound, we would stand a very good chance of recovering from an event like this. It would take a lot of time to completely eradicate the threat and restore ourselves to our current state, but it would happen.

Lastly, as someone else has said, the game's missing a lot of features. Once the zombie AI is completed and implemented - which, by word of the developers, is a fair way off - I can easily see people having a much harder time deathmatching. It will simply be too difficult to do so and get away alive.

If the zombie AI is fleshed out the way it should be.

SAS;DR version: Forget I said anything if you can't pay attention for five minutes to read the damn post.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Wolfguarde

[iBane 381]

Actually, compare the darker side to the people who were helping each other out - and I think you'll get my point.  How many people died from bullet holes then drowning?  Not a lot what, 1 or two? If that?  How many people gave a woman and her child water, or formula?  How many people helped the elderly get nourishment?  You didn't see that?  Or are you just focused on the negative smaller aspects of inhumanity?  Because, all of those people helping each other completely dwarfed the foolish ones trying to kill each other.  Sure, there were small reports here and there about somebody shooting at someone else, but out of the tens of thousands of people caught up in that disaster - did thousands die because of roving bands of bandits or did a couple of people die because they were idiots?  What I saw were tens of thousands of people trapped, helping each other out when they could.  Don't know what media you tuned into, but it sure is an interesting perspective on that event. 

 

and

Straight from the Wiki - so I guess it is how you really want to look at the story; and what history you want to actually remember.  Remember this though, there are not a lot of valid reports of actual homocides that took place after the hurricane.  So, in my opinion... humanity helped each other more than it went against each other.  So, yes - all of the people quoting Hurricane Katrina... do a little research and you will find that humanity still prevailed, way above all the negativity that you so ever wish to be present.

 

Katrina was isolated and a microcosm with ready access to all kinds of still-functioning society.  DayZ presupposes a widespread cataclysm...there is no outside help to call on. You're making a false comparison.  I simply used Katrina as an example of how people behave when there is no system of consequence in place.

 

I did not compare Katrina to a post-apocalyptic society.  Clearly my "All that being said, people don't really need the threat of starvation and death to abandoned any sense of human decency." transition statement wasn't noticed in your studious review of my post.

Edited February 27, 2014 by iBane

[Mr Sinister 167]

I dont think id put it down to human nature myself, id put it more down to "gaming nature". For years people have gathered on certain servers in 100s of games with there friends, to fight other people and there friends. Because the only real threat has been other people. The question is how do the devs make dayz's largest threat be not the players. I would defiantly (upon completion of the game) be aiming to make the zombies the largest threat for one with the enviroment number two, other people last. A far higher number of zombies for one, headshots only to kill them, you shoot, expect to attract half a citys worth of them, in the citys. So on and so forth, less ammo, no more guns added (perhaps remove the M4 and add the AK instead because of where the game is based).  Then with the hunting and camp development more to do there for people. I want to see very few people fighting off thousands of zombies from their camp after a horde comes across them and all hell breaks loose. Sure we will always get people who will shoot and loot, but if the consequences of shooting anyone else at least in a town/city etc were that half of the zombie population would be on there heads in very little time it would put alot off for a start. Its a tough one to fix, the gamers a-typical mindset, but if any game has the chance to be somthing better and be truly a next generation game of zombie horror survival. Dayz is it, lets hope the devs will aim for a new audience, so we wont get lumbered with yet another game of very little difference from everything else out there. It rests in there hands.