Why do some players do everything possible to avoid interaction?

[liquidsnake 275]

There seems to be a huge problem with communication in SA. I've actually never been spoken to, while I hold up and try to interact all the time. I like RP so I don't just shoot but try to converse first. I've even given players some gear and they just took it and left without even a single word leaving their mouth. In the mod conversations were plentiful and no "hi" went unanswered, so I wonder what changed

[Elle 562]

I'm sure I'm not alone: In most successful hostage situations I've encountered - from both sides - if you play it cool and do what your told, you'll come out of it alive. Hell, you'll often come out of it better off than when you started!

some of us are simply NOT going to be hostages. ever. had you cornered me in that barracks and I had no way out except at your good will then I am forcing you to fight no matter the odds - I don't want to chat with you at this point and I am certainly not compliant. yes you will likely kill me. I will do everything in my power to kill or maim as many of you as possible. the more it costs you, the better I feel about it. the biggest difference in the way I play vs the way you play is that if I have the upper hand on a military base I will almost always allow the other person to escape if I have not been seen and if I have been seen I will assure the other person that I have no intent to shoot (even if I have my wep pointed at their face) and we should part ways alive and unscathed. in an even match its usually a flight situation on both sides (as in no one had a wep out and we surprised each other) I tend to allow my flight direction to be known and I watch my six but I run. if I am on the loosing side no matter how many I encounter, I die. if you are alone I will likely leave you unscathed (and take my punishment for not being alert) but if you are in a group the odds of dick measuring is pretty high so.... at any rate once the shooting starts I am going to shoot up as much of your group as I possibly can and force you to kill me. once dead or unconscious I will respawn immediately so grab your cuffs or just keep em in your pocket cause I aint stickin around to hear you talk smack on local comms. 

[pilgrim* 3514]

Hope this is not boring:

If your gameplay is to hold a military policing role in an area like NEAF or Balota, you have exactly the same problems that face real life military in several areas of the world today. (I won't enumerate them, everyone knows where they are, and the 'special circumstances' of each)

The airfields are definitely combat-zones. They are actively dangerous fighting areas, pretty well all players know this, and agree they are current combat-zones. But this is not a classic two-power confrontation. Often strangers may be friendly, not fight, or cooperate inside the zone. It is more like an insurrection area, or region outside the rule of law, or a region dominated or disputed by 'warlords' or paramilitary, armed and semi-organized groups, lawless individuals, pirates, bandits, revolutionaries, religious zealots, and suspicious non-aligned survivors, one might say also 'armed civilians' and even non-violent sects.

If this is your gameplay, then you're involved in a key aspect of modern military training. How to act in these zones? If this is your game (and why not), then asking "why didn't the guy communicate?" is like loosing the round. He acted wrong so you shot him. You probably won't get 10/10 for this exercise.

You face individuals, temporary alliances, groups, organized or disorganized, or specifically antagonistic, or simply wary. In the game, the fact that players may be any age from very young (say ten or twelve) and any nationality, and with completely different basic ideas of why they are playing, different equipment (including no headphones, no mike) corresponds in real life to you as a military unit policing an area where reactions can vary rapidly and seemingly 'without reason' between very great extremes.

So if you are into "military policing" then you are exactly where you want to be. You are in a very dangerous situation which will often become rapidly incomprehensible and/or deadly. You not only need firepower, organisation and discipline you also need  understanding of local attitudes and complex motivations, and great communication skills.

Since you asked the question, I guess you yourself don't mark your team 10/10 for this exercise? But perhaps you really had no other choice? You couldn't just walk away, obviously, because that's not your objective?
   
*
As for my 'No Pasaran' quote earlier: Let's say I'm an amateur Hawkeye out with my long rifle in the year 1757 minding my own business, jus lookin' for food, and a British military patrol turns up. They got no business to be here! Damn them. Why would I want to talk to them? And if I was stupid enough to let them shoot me - then why would I want to talk to them? My tradition is to remain silent.  Or maybe by bad luck my indian friends were logged out, and they just didn't show in time. Or maybe I'm jus' a simple minded backwoods boy with no idea about modern warfare.

 

xx

Edited May 5, 2014 by pilgrim

[mithrawndo 166]

Some of us are simply NOT going to be hostages, ever. Had you cornered me in that barracks and I had no way out except at your good will, then I am forcing you to fight no matter the odds. I don't want to chat with you at this point and I am certainly not compliant. Yes, you will likely kill me [but] I will do everything in my power to kill or maim as many of you as possible. The more it costs you, the better I feel about it.

 

The biggest difference in the way I play [versus] the way you play is that if I have the upper hand on a military base, I will almost always allow the other person to escape if I have not been seen. If I have been seen I will assure the other person that I have no [intention] to shoot (even if I have my [weapon] pointed at their face) and we should part ways alive and unscathed. In an even match its usually a flight situation on both sides (as in no one had a [weapon] out and we surprised each other) I tend to allow my flight direction to be known and I watch my six but I run. if I am on the loosing side no matter how many I encounter, I die. if you are alone I will likely leave you unscathed (and take my punishment for not being alert) but if you are in a group the odds of dick measuring is pretty high so.... at any rate once the shooting starts I am going to shoot up as much of your group as I possibly can and force you to kill me.

 

Once dead or unconscious I will respawn immediately, so grab your cuffs or just keep [them] in your pocket [because] I ain't sticking around to hear you talk smack on local comms. 

 

Apologies for editing your post, but the wall of text hurt my eyes.

 

Whilst your reaction saddens me, I completely understand where you're coming from. I've seen myself act in a similar manner, too - and in fact I even mention just above your post that I will often try and fight my way out of a hostage situation if I feel it's going to end badly. However the topic at hand isn't surrounding the common reaction of trying to bite when cornered (a perfectly natural, animal-esque response), but rather trying to flee when it's clear that running isn't a viable option.

As for the smack comments? I think my posts on this board speak volumes about how I personally handle interactions: Diplomacy and manners are key. Smack is not an option.

[mithrawndo 166]

Hope this is not boring:

If your gameplay is to hold a military policing role in an area like NEAF or Balota, you have exactly the same problems that face real life military in several areas of the world today. (I won't enumerate them, everyone knows where they are, and the 'special circumstances' of each)

The airfields are definitely combat-zones. They are actively dangerous fighting areas, pretty well all players know this, and agree they are current combat-zones. But this is not a classic two-power confrontation. Often strangers may be friendly, not fight, or cooperate inside the zone. It is more like an insurrection area, or region outside the rule of law, or a region dominated or disputed by 'warlords' or paramilitary, armed and semi-organized groups, lawless individuals, pirates, bandits, revolutionaries, religious zealots, and suspicious non-aligned survivors, one might say also 'armed civilians' and even non-violent sects.

If this is your gameplay, then you're involved in a key aspect of modern military training. How to act in these zones? If this is your game (and why not), then asking "why didn't the guy communicate?" is like loosing the round. He acted wrong so you shot him. You probably won't get 10/10 for this exercise.

You face individuals, temporary alliances, groups, organized or disorganized, or specifically antagonistic, or simply wary. In the game, the fact that players may be any age from very young (say ten or twelve) and any nationality, and with completely different basic ideas of why they are playing, different equipment (including no headphones, no mike) corresponds in real life to you as a military unit policing an area where reactions can vary rapidly and seemingly 'without reason' between very great extremes.

So if you are into "military policing" then you are exactly where you want to be. You are in a very dangerous situation which will often become rapidly incomprehensible and/or deadly. You not only need firepower, organisation and discipline you also need  understanding of local attitudes and complex motivations, and great communication skills.

Since you asked the question, I guess you yourself don't mark your team 10/10 for this exercise? But perhaps you really had no other choice? You couldn't just walk away, obviously, because that's not your objective.

   

*

As for my 'No Pasaran' quote earlier: Let's say I'm an amateur Hawkeye out with my long rifle in the year 1757 minding my own business, jus lookin' for food, and a British military patrol turns up. They got no business to be here! Damn them. Why would I want to talk to them? And if I was stupid enough to let them shoot me - then why would I want to talk to them? My tradition is to remain silent.  Or maybe by bad luck my indian friends logged out, and they just didn't show in time. Or maybe I'm jus' a simple minded backwoods boy with no idea about modern warfare.

 

xx

 

When we approached Balota, we had no intentions of sticking around. One of our number needed a few pieces of gear that spawn in the area (namely M4 optics), and so we took up positions to cover whilst we tried to scour the area for equipment. Our encounter was not unexpected, but it was not the purpose of the visit.

I still don't understand what you're inferring: "No Pasaran" was the rallying call of the communist supporters against the black coats in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s. It translates roughly from Spanish as "None Shall Pass". Your analogy of the British patrol during the United States revolt against the Crown doesn't make sense to me either, as the British had as much right to the United States as the white "Americans" of the time did.

 

This seems to be going radically off topic though!

[Elle 562]

Apologies for editing your post, but the wall of text hurt my eyes.

no worries I live around a lot of OCD.

 

Whilst your reaction saddens me, I completely understand where you're coming from. I've seen myself act in a similar manner, too - and in fact I even mention just above your post that I will often try and fight my way out of a hostage situation if I feel it's going to end badly. However the topic at hand isn't surrounding the common reaction of trying to bite when cornered (a perfectly natural, animal-esque response), but rather trying to flee when it's clear that running isn't a viable option.

be sad all you want but I am not alone in this and you will encounter many that feel this way. as for your victim... his mistake was trying to flee - just sit tight and kill everything that comes thru the door or wait till the squad gets bored (patience, while not always providing a just reward, has much merit on its own) or opts out of the risk of loosing life or gear.

 

As for the smack comments? I think my posts on this board speak volumes about how I personally handle interactions: Diplomacy and manners are key. Smack is not an option.

soooo you've caught me on a base with my pants down and you are telling me to drop my wep or die - diplomacy just shit the bed.

[mithrawndo 166]

no worries I live around a lot of OCD.

 

be sad all you want but I am not alone in this and you will encounter many that feel this way. as for your victim... his mistake was trying to flee - just sit tight and kill everything that comes thru the door or wait till the squad gets bored (patience, while not always providing a just reward, has much merit on its own) or opts out of the risk of loosing life or gear.

 

soooo you've caught me on a base with my pants down and you are telling me to drop my wep or die - diplomacy just shit the bed.

 

Thanks: I know it's petty, but language is the basis of civilisation in my mind!

It saddens me to hear what you say not because I have an issue with that reaction, but because that reaction should surely be only one of a multitude of options available in the situation outlined in the original post. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay quiet and fight, and whilst it's not the case here sometimes the right response is indeed to run like hell. Sometimes however, surely bargaining your way out is the better, braver and more honourable way to deal with being taken hostage? After all whilst we didn't actually have him restrained, by locking down the building in which he was in we had put him into a de facto hostage situation.

As for your last point? I could have put a bullet into the target's head from 50m when I first spotted him facing away from me in one of the bunk room's in the barracks. Instead, I gave him a warning that he had been spotted and tried to open negotiations for his freedom. That is surely a microcosm of diplomacy...

[pilgrim* 3514]

I still don't understand what you're inferring: "No Pasaran" was the rallying call of the communist supporters against the black coats in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s. It translates roughly from Spanish as "None Shall Pass". Your analogy of the British patrol during the United States revolt against the Crown doesn't make sense to me either, as the British had as much right to the United States as the white "Americans" of the time did.

 

No Pasaran (They shall not pass) is taken to mean:

 

They will NOT get through

We will stand against them

They wont win

Eff Them

Whatever they want they're not getting it

They can go to hell, we're staying here

Stand and fight

We shall win watever the cost

Go away (we don't like you here)

Back, ye dogs

No, never

Merde

Get lost

..etc

 

Its a (famous) fighting slogan signifying intent. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Scotland, Stalingrad, the Danelaw, Palestine, N. America, the Confederacy, Vietnam, the Crusades, Nevsky Bridge, wherever at whatever corresponding time period, conflicts always involve folk telling other folk they've no business to be where they are, and they aim to stop each other from attempting to get where they are going, or die trying. This is simply a well known example. It also implies freedom-loving volunteers fighting against organised fascism (but this is a view of the opponent taken by many sides in many conflicts, even if they did not use the word "fascist" as the local insult at the time)

[historical note]

:edited

Edited May 4, 2014 by pilgrim

[Elle 562]

Thanks: I know it's petty, but language is the basis of civilisation in my mind!

It saddens me to hear what you say not because I have an issue with that reaction, but because that reaction should surely be only one of a multitude of options available in the situation outlined in the original post. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay quiet and fight, and whilst it's not the case here sometimes the right response is indeed to run like hell. Sometimes however, surely bargaining your way out is the better, braver and more honourable way to deal with being taken hostage? After all whilst we didn't actually have him restrained, by locking down the building in which he was in we had put him into a de facto hostage situation.

As for your last point? I could have put a bullet into the target's head from 50m when I first spotted him facing away from me in one of the bunk room's in the barracks. Instead, I gave him a warning that he had been spotted and tried to open negotiations for his freedom. That is surely a microcosm of diplomacy...

like I said - not being taken hostage, ever. apparently your victim felt the same way.

 

the second you say anything that suggests I should in any way disarm or stop while I am running or anything along those lines you have just tossed diplomacy down the crapper.

[mithrawndo 166]

Its a (famous) fighting slogan signifying intent. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Scotland, Stalingrad, the Danelaw, Palestine, N. America, the Confederacy, Vietnam, the Crusades, Nevsky Bridge, wherever at whatever corresponding time period, conflicts always involve folk telling other folk they've no business to be where they are, and they aim to stop each other from attempting to get where they are going, or die trying. This is simply a well known example. It also implies freedom-loving volunteers fighting against organised fascism (but this is a view of the opponent taken by many sides in many conflicts)

[historical note]

 

Thank you for the clarification! I was only aware of it's use in the 30's and I clearly haven't had enough sleep to be able to join the dots! Likewise the terrorist/freedom fighter relation in your latter point. I think I might need more caffeine.

 

 

like I said - not being taken hostage, ever. apparently your victim felt the same way.

 

the second you say anything that suggests I should in any way disarm or stop while I am running or anything along those lines you have just tossed diplomacy down the crapper.

 

As I stated, the target here was already our de facto hostage when I tried to open communications. With three guns from three angles pointing at him (though admittedly, I only told him of the one sniper and by my presence inferred a second), any step out of line would result in death. I assert therefore that the choice to be a hostage or not isn't yours to make!

 

As with the second, the exact phrase is known as "Gunboat Diplomacy" or "Big Stick Diplomacy". It's not pretty, it's not elegant - but it's still diplomacy. See Imperial Europe between the 18th and 20th centuries, and every middle eastern conflict since 1970 for examples of how people act in these circumstances.

[Elle 562]

As I stated, the target here was already our de facto hostage when I tried to open communications. With three guns from three angles pointing at him (though admittedly, I only told him of the one sniper and by my presence inferred a second), any step out of line would result in death. I assert therefore that the choice to be a hostage or not isn't yours to make!

 

As with the second, the exact phrase is known as "Gunboat Diplomacy" or "Big Stick Diplomacy". It's not pretty, it's not elegant - but it's still diplomacy. See Imperial Europe between the 18th and 20th centuries, and every middle eastern conflict since 1970 for examples of how people act in these circumstances.

he wasn't your hostage until you incapacitated him and cuffed him but he was your victim the entire time. maybe you should have just taken the 50meter shot. "gunboat diplomacy" (not actually diplomacy but rather a "my gun is bigger than your's" situation) may work between governments that have armies but it never works with smaller groups - someone always looses (a lot in most cases) - and I am sorry but everything you have described in your OP makes you the aggressor plain and simple. I and many like me will not negotiate - remember that the next time you corner some solo player and try to have your way with them.

 

edit: oh and history lessons have no relevance in a video game that establishes an unprecedented event (albeit fictional) that destroys everything that was built on that history. welcome to the apocalypse.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Elle

[mithrawndo 166]

he wasn't your hostage until you incapacitated him and cuffed him but he was your victim the entire time. maybe you should have just taken the 50meter shot. "gunboat diplomacy" (not actually diplomacy but rather a "my gun is bigger than your's" situation) may work between governments that have armies but it never works with smaller groups - someone always looses (a lot in most cases) - and I am sorry but everything you have described in your OP makes you the aggressor plain and simple. I and many like me will not negotiate - remember that the next time you corner some solo player and try to have your way with them.

 

Hostage: A person given or held as security for the fulfillment of certain conditions or terms.

 

By this definition, in these circumstances the moment I made my demand of the victim, he became our hostage. I do understand however that you see this belligerence as a philosophical point, and that you're taking the attitude of No Surrender. As a British citizen with Irish links, my heart sinks to see someone think like this, but it's your right to do so.

 

Edit: Reponse to edit: Oh my, seriously? You've just made me write you off as a troll :(

Edited May 4, 2014 by Mithrawndo

[Elle 562]

Hostage: A person given or held as security for the fulfillment of certain conditions or terms.

 

By this definition, in these circumstances the moment I made my demand of the victim, he became our hostage. I do understand however that you see this belligerence as a philosophical point, and that you're taking the attitude of No Surrender. As a British citizen with Irish links, my heart sinks to see someone think like this, but it's your right to do so.

 

Edit: Reponse to edit: Oh my, seriously? You've just made me write you off as a troll :(

yeah well it makes my heart sink to witness people like you feel as tho your aggression is the moral high ground somehow. and I think we have the answer to your original post - people like you are the reason people like me will never surrender and work hard to avoid interaction.  oh and do you think for one second that during the apocalypse I am going to stop and consider that at some point in history my ancestors beat the stuffing out of your ancestors?? seems unreasonable. 

 

edit: forgot to address the hostage situation - he was not your hostage until you had immediate control of his person. that did not happen until you shot him.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Elle

[minime1000 78]

Why not

I prefer solo play so I avoid people at all costs and if I do happen to encounter someone I usually shoot first and ask questions later.

[LimeMobber 47]

Mithrawndo, on 04 May 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

As I stated, the target here was already our de facto hostage when I tried to open communications. With three guns from three angles pointing at him (though admittedly, I only told him of the one sniper and by my presence inferred a second), any step out of line would result in death. I assert therefore that the choice to be a hostage or not isn't yours to make!

 

 

 

You would be wrong. In a game with instant respawn and no loss other than the loot you can never take away the choice.

 

Why would I want to be a hostage? I have to deal potentially with a bunch of pricks who may or may not just shoot me anyway. My preference is to go down shooting so that you ruin at least a portion of the gear I have and if I am lucky ruin some of your gear if not kill one or more of you.

[mithrawndo 166]

yeah well it makes my heart sink to witness people like you feel as tho your aggression is the moral high ground somehow. and I think we have the answer to your original post - people like you are the reason people like me will never surrender and work hard to avoid interaction.  oh and do you think for one second that during the apocalypse I am going to stop and consider that at some point in history my ancestors beat the stuffing out of your ancestors?? seems unreasonable. 

 

edit: forgot to address the hostage situation - he was not your hostage until you had immediate control of his person. that did not happen until you shot him.

 

I have made no claim for moral superiority because of my actions here, so stop trying to put words in my mouth please. My assertion was simply that you are more narrow minded than I am; you see only one outcome of a kidnapping, rather than many.

 

We shall have to agree to differ on the definition of the word "hostage", as this has devolved into a cyclical debate.

 

Why not

I prefer solo play so I avoid people at all costs and if I do happen to encounter someone I usually shoot first and ask questions later.

 

You would be wrong. In a game with instant respawn and no loss other than the loot you can never take away the choice.

 

Why would I want to be a hostage? I have to deal potentially with a bunch of pricks who may or may not just shoot me anyway. My preference is to go down shooting so that you ruin at least a portion of the gear I have and if I am lucky ruin some of your gear if not kill one or more of you.

 

These are both valid responses too, but not the only option in these circumstances. In this specific example the target did not attempt to fight back until his choice was removed: He was crippled by our sniper whilst trying to run across the airfield after (I assume) refusing to communicate with his captors. Presumably because he, like yourselves, made an assumption on the motive of his captors

 

LimeMobber: Clarify for me, if you will - What exactly are your choices when three guns are pointed at the only exit of a building, and those guns are all out of your line of sight?

[almf3 3]

I think it's just a mix of the entire experience in Dayz. Most players are KOS, so I think that automatically puts the situation from 0 to 11. I've been just out of sight a few times watching a group of even unarmed players go after new spawns pummeling them. There's such a low chance of coming through that situation ok I think most players would just chance it.

And if you're robbed and lose your gear, what's really the difference? Your character is just a basic, non - important avatar. As soon as you lose all your stuff your essentially a fresh spawn, so is it better to go out in a blaze of glory or try to get out or just stand there and take the VERY low percentage chance that you're not gonna get killed and rolled?

There's no real investment in your character I can see besides the loot you attain. There's a huge KOS mindset in this game unfortunately and it just makes that "let's just stand here and see where this goes" scenario very unappealing. I've been killed trying to help, trying to stay hidden and go through inventory, trying to heal other players, etc. Trust is the rarest commodity in the game.

From my point of view all that guy knew was that he was at a disadvantage. There's no telling if you were serious about him being surrounded, if you were actually armed, anything. But he did know you could see him and he couldn't see you. That's a really rough spot to be in this game. Normally you're just shot dead before you know what's happening. I think actually having that moment to think about it ups the adrenaline more and makes it more tense.

[Ken Bean 175]

@op

I don't really know the problem is.

You commited at least 3 hostile acts (trapping, urging, wounding).

Why should he talk to you? To get hostile act number 4 and 5 and 6?

Maybe try friendly next time. ;-)

Edited May 4, 2014 by Ken Bean

[almf3 3]

I'd love to find a group to run with and I'd be more interested in helping players than being highwaymen but it's not easy to get with groups from what I've seen so far and the groups I've come across seem much more bent on aggression than anything else. Kinda sad, was not the dynamic I was hoping for starting in dayz.

[mithrawndo 166]

There's a huge KOS mindset in this game...

...There's no telling if you were serious about him being surrounded, if you were actually armed, anything. But he did know you could see him and he couldn't see you. That's a really rough spot to be in this game. Normally you're just shot dead before you know what's happening. I think actually having that moment to think about it ups the adrenaline more and makes it more tense.

 

Exactly! Having come from Eve Online what drew me to this game was it's sandbox elements and the adrenaline inducing interactions - it's more terrifying when someone confronts you than shoots you I think, and as I've mentioned in other posts in this thread I actively hunt out these interactions, from both side (see earlier post about walking down the road shooting zombies to draw attention).

 

In his boots, I wouldn't have stayed silent. It's this silence I struggle to understand above all else... the victim went from having at least three or four different avenues of escape to none in half a heartbeat.

 

 

@op

I don't really know the problem is.

You commited at least 3 hostile acts (trapping, urging, wounding).

Why should he talk to you? To get hostile act number 4 and 5 and 6?

Maybe try friendly next time. ;-)

 

To save his gear and life. When he was lying on the floor unconscious I patched him up and offered him salvation in the form of a blood bag. At this point he had nothing to lose and whilst I could understand if he was sitting there seething on the other end of the screen, it was the complete lack of any interaction that makes no sense to me. Avoiding it altogether, yes... but once you're already cornered?

 

As for trying friendly? I am no liar. I will not tell someone I'm friendly if I'm not; If I offer you a way out, you will have it. I am not alone in doing this, and from what I can see from the "anti-bandit" sentiment espoused in this thread, the KoS mentality problem actually lies mostly with the anti-social part of the player base.

[mithrawndo 166]

I'd love to find a group to run with and I'd be more interested in helping players than being highwaymen but it's not easy to get with groups from what I've seen so far and the groups I've come across seem much more bent on aggression than anything else. Kinda sad, was not the dynamic I was hoping for starting in dayz.

 

There are a few organised groups out there that focus on helping players. Reddit Rescue Force is one of them, as are the Trusted Wasteland Medics. I share your remorse; This short video pretty much sums it up.

[Ken Bean 175]

To save his gear and life. When he was lying on the floor unconscious I patched him up and offered him salvation in the form of a blood bag. At this point he had nothing to lose and whilst I could understand if he was sitting there seething on the other end of the screen, it was the complete lack of any interaction that makes no sense to me. Avoiding it altogether, yes... but once you're already cornered?

 

As for trying friendly? I am no liar. I will not tell someone I'm friendly if I'm not; If I offer you a way out, you will have it. I am not alone in doing this, and from what I can see from the "anti-bandit" sentiment espoused in this thread, the KoS mentality problem actually lies mostly with the anti-social part of the player base.

Uhm, whatever your intentions were, they became meaningless due to your hostile operation.

I don't really know what you expect.

Wasn't looting out his gear not hostile act number 4? Say as punishment for not complying?

Edited May 4, 2014 by Ken Bean

[almf3 3]

I absolutely love the fact that this game isn't a real pvp thing. There's absolutely no necessity to harm another player unless you fear for your safety or you're feeling greedy for their equipment. That's such an oddity in gaming at the moment. There's there ever present option but no real incentive. There's no points, no score, no perks or bonuses, no real detriments either. It's just an option for the sake of being an option. I just hate that so many people have treated it like a bonus that it's really altered the entire style of the game. It went from sometimes you'll have to be aggressive to "well everyone is out to get me, so I've gotta shoot first". I agree that this game has the potential of a grand social experiment but the outcome thus far has been very negative.

[mithrawndo 166]

Uhm, whatever your intentions were, they became meaningless due to your hostile operation.

I don't really know what you expect.

Wasn't looting out his gear not hostile act number 4? Say as punishment for not complying?

 

If you check back, we emptied his gear after he had left the server. The hostile acts we committed were:

 

1) Surrounding him (debatable, but for the sake of argument accepted)

2) Making demands of him

3) Shooting him

4) Handcuffing him

 

As for what I expected? Rational thinking, a desire to engage in multiplayer and/or a survival instinct. The victim here showed none of these, hence my attempts at further understanding his actions.

 

 

I absolutely love the fact that this game isn't a real pvp thing. There's absolutely no necessity to harm another player unless you fear for your safety or you're feeling greedy for their equipment. That's such an oddity in gaming at the moment. There's there ever present option but no real incentive. There's no points, no score, no perks or bonuses, no real detriments either. It's just an option for the sake of being an option. I just hate that so many people have treated it like a bonus that it's really altered the entire style of the game. It went from sometimes you'll have to be aggressive to "well everyone is out to get me, so I've gotta shoot first". I agree that this game has the potential of a grand social experiment but the outcome thus far has been very negative.

 

Couldn't agree more. Still, much like the saying that "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing", similarly if we stop trying to make this the Grand Social Experiment, so will it stop.

[hombrecz 832]

Problem is, that "hostage" never knows, what are really your intentions.

Are you really just going to cuff him, search him and let him go?

Or are you going to feed him with desinfectant or rotten vegies?

 

But personaly, I would have risked it and hoped for good gameplay footage :-).

Different story might be, when you are really fully decked out and dont want to lose stuff...still its not best thing to dwell on gear, more so when its just alpha.