Is DayZ realistic?

[DemonGroover 8836]

For myself... I'm a role player from way back. I just pretend that other players are the early stage infected' date=' their humanity having slipped away to a degree before they succumb to the madness of infection.

[/quote']

Nice one.

I have my own RP mechanics I play by, but I will be using this myself to explain the behaviour of others ;)

To answer the original question. Dayz is one of the most realistic games / Mods I have played. Part of that comes from Arma being a hardcore realistic sim. But Dayz takes it beyond that and works on other levels too. For example the fear / tension is more realistic than anything I have played before.

Realistic to life ? Well, no game ever is, but when stood along other games it holds up to the question of realism well.

I agree that in terms of the tension and fear that you feel, Day Z cant be matched.

What concerns me though is that this game can be so much more than mere PvP and some of the things that may be introduced could be made redundant by wanton mass murder and the like.

Rocket doesnt want to interfere in how a player chooses to play, but in a way this game makes players become consequence free killers - because everyone else is. And i am sure the highest percentage of murder is done not because of need, but fear that they will be shot if they dont shoot first.

Unfortunately there isnt a solution, and even if it does become a mass PvP deathmatch you will still see me crawling around the fringes of towns looking for beans.

[DemonGroover 8836]

Oops did i do that?

[Codus 22]

As long as there is no single persistent big server for all of us to play on, there won't be any consequences or any concerns about your own reputation. You can shoot people and be a complete asshat and simply log out to go to a different server. You'll never see the other person again.

And even with a persistent big server you'd still have the "badass" type of players. See EvE online. A lot of people enjoy to be bad. And there is nothing wrong with it in the first place - As long as there are downsides to it.

[DemonGroover 8836]

Maybe there needs to be a system where you can have one character only, with one persistent name, so that your reputation will depend on your actions. If you are an ass then your reputation as an ass will follow you.

[x0pticLukeZz 0]

Yes DayZ is a game' date=' which makes the stakes infinitely lower than real life. Which means the PvP in the game is probably much lower that it would be in real life.

[/quote']

That's not right :D If the stakes are lower in a game then 'PvP' would not be higher in real life.

The game has no risk to the person playing except their pride and a few virtual belongings. This means they are going to take far more risks (engage in PvP) because they can come back from it if it goes wrong.

In real life, your life is potentially on the line. You will take far fewer risks (attacking people etc) because you could get wounded/die etc.

100% not realistic. It's a video game and zombies aren't real. There is no comparison to this and real life. As for player actions' date=' 100% realistic. Just look at any major corporation or anyone in a tight spot. They'll kill you without question.

[/quote']

First statistic is right. Second statistic is completely incorrect. People always say "oh yeah I'd kill everyone I see in a zed apocalypse"; the honest truth is you're not there and you have no idea what you'd do.

[luckyhendrix 2]

What do ppl have with realism ?

It is NOT about realism ! because of two reason :

1) As you all said it's a game.So as much as it can mimic real life situation, it is still not real life.

2) How on hell is a Zombie apocalypse supposed to be realistic in the first place ??

What is important, like rocket once said , is that is feels authentic, that the game triggers emotions and makes you feel like if you actually were there.

And I personally find it to be a pretty authentic game !

[Joeses 0]

We need cops in DayZ!

[DemonGroover 8836]

I think that players should just play the gamestyle they really want to play. If you want to survive and not be a killer then act that way. Sure you will be killed many times but persevere and hopefully like minded people will come your way.

Until everyone gets past the "I Must Shoot on Sight or i Will Die" mentality i cant see how the game can progress to new levels and varieties of gameplay.

And finally if you want to be a bandit - fine - just don't DC when you get return fire. Face the consequences you big girl's blouses.

[ssiilleesskkyy@googlemail.com 1]

Since they took out the communication it's now a shoot on sight policy. If this were as 'real' as everyone claims it to be there would be communication in real life. Thus your argument is flawed. It's not because people know it's a game, people are afraid to die. With no chat this is why people kill each other more frequently now than ever before. Plus if this were to happen in real life there would be bandits of some sort just out to kill as a sport. Sad but true.

[Disgraced 1123]

Since they took out the communication it's now a shoot on sight policy. If this were as 'real' as everyone claims it to be there would be communication in real life. Thus your argument is flawed. It's not because people know it's a game' date=' people are afraid to die. With no chat this is why people kill each other more frequently now than ever before. Plus if this were to happen in real life there would be bandits of some sort just out to kill as a sport. Sad but true.

[/quote']

There is disconnected, floating chat with no device associated, in your field of vision?

Direct communication can be "heard" for a radius around your character in an attempt to simulate talking/shouting.

Radios would be great, but frankly, it's another breaking of "the fourth wall". I prefer NOT hearing from other people as 90% of what they say, I don't care about and it's distracting. I'm sure at some point, it will be an option to turn off.

[Mr Muggles 19]

It's the genuine pk's/game spoilers that started the current mess only very recently according to a lot of people on here.

Out of the 100% of players maybe only 5% only had one intention, to kill other players indiscriminately. We can only assume they were bullied at school/are being bullied at school to describe the behaviour, possibly some form of sexual abuse at the hands of relatives out there in "redkneck land".

As a result of the 5% this number has gown to what I believe it is now and stated so a few days back, 90% and rising. Unless you are in comms/TS with some other players there really is no point playing this game on your own anymore if you want to last more than an hour.

This thread has descended into pk's vs survivors btw so it will get merged and rightly so but I agree with the OP and have had the same attitude since I started playing.

I bought ARMAII because of this mod, then within a few days it was obvious to me that it was not what I expected. The game was......but the game style was not. It's become another online game dominated by trolls with guns otherwise known as bandits.

I'm not, never have been a FPS gamer and have no interest in deathmatch/capture the flag style games. The trolls/bandits have created such a bad situation online that most players are now playing like them to survive i.e. shoot on site which actually goes against there principles and morals. I'm an ageing RPG gamer so I will happily pay for a standalone version without the trolls.

[Pinky Stavo 0]

I think that players should just play the gamestyle they really want to play. If you want to survive and not be a killer then act that way. Sure you will be killed many times but persevere and hopefully like minded people will come your way.

Until everyone gets past the "I Must Shoot on Sight or i Will Die" mentality i cant see how the game can progress to new levels and varieties of gameplay.

And finally if you want to be a bandit - fine - just don't DC when you get return fire. Face the consequences you big girl's blouses.

^this

[direwind 3]

Ok, so the world is coming to an end, people are eating people, the dead walking. you are running low on food and water, you have weapons but little ammo.

You do fine on your own, you dont need other people, you know how to keep hidden and thats all you really need in this new cruel world...

You see a man, he is looking through some old trash can, he wont find anything because you had already been there 10 mins ago, you notice he has a backpack, you can see he has some food and water, the guy is covered in blood! is it his own?

He has a gun, can i take the risk, can i trust him, i need that food and water, will he share it with me?

Do i take the risk, walk out to him and try to trade, will the guy shoot me and take what i have, or betray me later, or will he become a good friend and team mate, can i afford to take the risk?

Or do i line him up in my sights, and pull the trigger and take what i need, how long can i last alone, how long before the infection takes me too.

[Mr Muggles 19]

Ok' date=' so the world is coming to an end, people are eating people, the dead walking. you are running low on food and water, you have weapons but little ammo.

You do fine on your own, you dont need other people, you know how to keep hidden and thats all you really need in this new cruel world...

You see a man, he is looking through some old trash can, he wont find anything because you had already been there 10 mins ago, you notice he has a backpack, you can see he has some food and water, the guy is covered in blood! is it his own?

He has a gun, can i take the risk, can i trust him, i need that food and water, will he share it with me?

Do i take the risk, walk out to him and try to trade, will the guy shoot me and take what i have, or betray me later, or will he become a good friend and team mate, can i afford to take the risk?

Or do i line him up in my sights, and pull the trigger and take what i need, how long can i last alone, how long before the infection takes me too.

[/quote']

All that has gone out the window.

This is all that's happening now "Or do i line him up in my sights, and pull the trigger"

sadly

[aposky 20]

In so many ways Day Z is the most realistic thing to happen on PC's in quite some time. Hunger' date=' thirst, sickness, being stealthy, having only one life all add to the realism of the game.

As a Social Experiment however, the game, through no fault of Rocket, has failed. 95% of people shoot on sight. Why? Because it is a game and people know it is a game? There arent any repercussions to a persons actions and so shooting people has become blase. And in a game like this i dont think you can apply penalties to someone who shoots on sight.

Think for a minute that if the scenario in Day Z actually happened. Would you, as a human being shoot people on sight? Or would you band together with your fellow survivors and try and survive? I think 95% of people would be so scared that they would cling onto any human contact they could. However this isnt being translated into the game - why not?

Is it too hard to band together with strangers? Are beans too addictive? Is it easier to shoot than talk? Is it more fun to kill others?

Just interested in knowing peoples thoughts that's all.

Cheers

[/quote']

The main problem is that there are absolutely no penalties or drawbacks for killing other players. You can trigger happy all the time and you don't need to think about consequences.

Bandits, or actually call them mass murderers (bandits steal stuff, not kill others) because they are are always winners:

- eliminate all threats (other players) fast and quick

- always shoot first

- get all loot

- usually are better equipped than survivors

- don't need to worry about food or water because loot those from dead survivors bodies

- they look like any other player, there is no way to spot the difference

Murderers are also biggest threat for humanity and end game itself. During zombie apocalypse at some point survivors would start thinking about finding a cure, clearing and securing towns, eliminating all zombies and renewing human race. So murderers are criminals.

< this is missing in DayZ >

In RL they would be chased by every single survivor with weapon or police/military, their faces would be exposed on arrest warrant, well known to survivors etc. There also would be a punishment: execution or jail.

This is missing in game. >

I think survivors should be aware who is murderer, what regions are dangerous etc

Suggestion one: bring back bandit skin, but call it murderer skin.

Now killers will know that others will known if they can trust a guy that they meet.

Second suggestion is penalties and punishment for killing survivors:

Every time player should be aware, if he kills someone he will be screwed if he gets killed. Player should think at least twice before he pulls a trigger, if he wants to take a risk of killing innocent people. What punishment would it be?

For every murder, X variable increments by 1.

If murderer gets killed, he goes to "jail" for X days. He's banished from game for that time.

But if murderers stay in hidden for few days, let's say 5 and won't get killed by survivors during this time, X value will be lowered by one.

Too hardcore solution? Don't think so. Exciting for murderers? Hell yes.

With this solution people would be more careful and less likely to kill on sight or with no reason.

Desperate player still could murder someone (PvP and bandits are still in a game) for food, but as in RL it would be risky business, Most of people would try to trade or talk first (like in RL!) with other survivors.

Game itself would be more exciting, being survivor AND murderer would be risky and improved gameplay closer RL.

It's a mod, in alpha stage - give it a try.

[heathy87 1]

it would be a daunting task trying to program true realism, if dayz had at least a fraction of realism it would ban you from the server on each death.

heck ban you from the game on death, see how many ppl gunho then, there's your realism, whole game ends up populated by 1 person or a handful of pacifists.

death is in a semi decent place you start with near nothing, respawning means there will never be that truly realistic element because, hey, your gunna reincarnate anyway.

I wonder what a true one life game would be like, i guess it would be dominated by groups of players it wouldn't be fun that's for sure.

[Lukio (DayZ) 24]

As a Social Experiment however' date=' the game, through no fault of Rocket, has failed. 95% of people shoot on sight. Why? Because it is a game and people know it is a game? There arent any repercussions to a persons actions and so shooting people has become blase. And in a game like this i dont think you can apply penalties to someone who shoots on sight.

[/quote']

Technically I'd say the social experiment is working.

The more advanced weaponry a player has, the higher the potential threat he is to your life.

Decisions taken:

Do not shoot, with a chance that he will not shoot you as well

Do not shoot, with a chance he will shoot you

Shoot, with a chance that he did not intend to shoot you

Shoot, with a chance that he intended to shoot you as well

Basically you are always "on the safe side" by shooting first (This does not mean that this should be a "rule" to play by for everyone). Every time a player gets shot, the chances that the other player you encounter will decide to not shoot are diminished, making shooting first even more viable. Also days survived and equipment gathered also will tilt the probabilities.

Imo social simulation does not only mean that everyone is all happy and nice with each other, it is about the reasoning behind decisions made by humans when interacting with others.

Technically if everyone vows to not shoot other players, there always will be the odd incident or accidental shooting which will taint this vow taken, thus again turning it over. To me the social experiment is working very well and has a strong dynamic, sometimes worse, sometimes to the better.

[sambrown1994@gmail.com 2]

It's the most realistic mod i've played, because in real life, you drop five feet and you snap your legs in two!

[rebb 13]

As a Social Experiment however' date=' the game, through no fault of Rocket, has failed. 95% of people shoot on sight. Why? Because it is a game and people know it is a game?

[/quote']

I think so too. Just looking at some of those new "Why you should play DayZ" Videos on Youtube nicely shows how those guys shoot other people out of sheer virtual-game-asshole-ness. One of the vids even shows a survivor protecting them against zombies, they repay him by shooting him with his own rifle.

Clearly doing it "for the lulz" or pumping up the old e-peen and nothing more.

Knowing that such people roam the game then causes everyone else to become paranoid.

It does not take much to spoil the broth.

[djkling 5]

^^^ Yes, its sad. People in real life would have a psychological problem with killing unless they were a pure sociopath. Thats maybe 15% of the pupulation, not 99% as seen in DayZ.

THere needs to be some penalty for pK and also for lonliness... both affect people profoundly

[DemonGroover 8836]

^^^ Yes' date=' its sad. People in real life would have a psychological problem with killing unless they were a pure sociopath. Thats maybe 15% of the pupulation, not 99% as seen in DayZ.

THere needs to be some penalty for pK and also for lonliness... both affect people profoundly

[/quote']

I am not sure there should be terribly high penalties against playing style, each person has their own view on how they want to play. My problem is a high % of people come into this game thinking it is a zombie survival simulation and end up getting shot by bandits for no apparent reason. So what do they do? They end up shooting on sight as well. And the viscious circle continues.

The game needs incentives for attaining high humanity and possibly applying psychological effects for low humanity. I am not saying these effects need be terribly negative. The need for drugs, the shakes, i dont know.

What i would like to see is players with very low humanity requiring a type of drug which high humanity players dont need, forcing them to seek these drugs out.

Would survivors then begin staking out known spawn areas for these drugs to exact revenge??

[RpTheHotrod 1]

In so many ways Day Z is the most realistic thing to happen on PC's in quite some time. Hunger' date=' thirst, sickness, being stealthy, having only one life all add to the realism of the game.

As a Social Experiment however, the game, through no fault of Rocket, has failed. 95% of people shoot on sight. Why? Because it is a game and people know it is a game? There arent any repercussions to a persons actions and so shooting people has become blase. And in a game like this i dont think you can apply penalties to someone who shoots on sight.

Think for a minute that if the scenario in Day Z actually happened. Would you, as a human being shoot people on sight? Or would you band together with your fellow survivors and try and survive? I think 95% of people would be so scared that they would cling onto any human contact they could. However this isnt being translated into the game - why not?

Is it too hard to band together with strangers? Are beans too addictive? Is it easier to shoot than talk? Is it more fun to kill others?

Just interested in knowing peoples thoughts that's all.

Cheers

[/quote']

In real life, the zombie threat would be far more real and dangerous where people would be DESIRING other people's help. The zombies are just so low threat in the mod that people get bored and go for pvp being the "game" (at least that's a significant mindset of players).

Also, it is a game, and people have been trained for years that the main point in many games is taking out other players.

[Codus 22]

What do ppl have with realism ?

It is NOT about realism ! because of two reason :

1) As you all said it's a game.So as much as it can mimic real life situation' date=' it is still not real life.

2) How on hell is a Zombie apocalypse supposed to be realistic in the first place ??

[...']

This is a mindgame: "What if....". Just because it ain't real life, we would not grow wings in a game and fly away from the zombies.

The realism approach is as follows: Take a snapshot from our reality. Now put zombies in it. There you go. Only unrealistic things are the zombies now.

[...]

I wonder what a true one life game would be like' date=' i guess it would be dominated by groups of players it wouldn't be fun that's for sure.

[/quote']

And you sir, you just described the collapse of society like I was going to argument with.

Some people would from groups and try to survive as a collective, others would form more gang like structures. There would be people who don't care about others lifes and there would be the ones who would give you half their beans regardless if they are starving or not.

rocket provided us a brilliant sandbox and in some way it is already like your description of an apocalypse. There are people who just kill you and there are the ones that will be glad to see you.

As long as the psychological effects are being produced by the player there won't be any realism in their actions. As long as we can step away from our compute,r nobody would be shocked by someones death, feel lonely or be scared of losing his life.

Only options left are ingame restrictions or simulation of psychological effects. Needless to say that they are very complex, complicated and each human reacts completely different to stress. And they are restrictions done by the game itself, which aims to be a sandbox. That's a bullet to your own (sandbox) knee.

[gray1107 (DayZ) 0]

In real life' date=' the zombie threat would be far more real and dangerous where people would be DESIRING other people's help. The zombies are just so low threat in the mod that people get bored and go for pvp being the "game" (at least that's a significant mindset of players).

[/quote']

THIS ^^^^ :-/

We're in a zombie game where they pose no threat whatsoever, if they weren't in the game it wouldn't change the gameplay. Think about it.

We need four or five times as many Zeds, forces people to cooperate or run out of ammo half way trying to reach a supermarket for food. They also need to spawn in areas of the countryside.

[dallas 5195]

The main problem is that ammunition and weapons are easily available. I don't think people would be much friendlier, but with more limited rescources, we might see an increase in robberies, instead of murders.

Imagine only having 4 rounds left in your revlover, knowing you'd have to make due with that for a day or two. You come across a few unarmed survivors and decide what they got, you need. Do you waste your few rounds, do you try to coerce them or are you all out of ammunition and try to bluff them? If they run, do you allow them to run, you might shoot and miss, four rounds could be more usefull against bandits, than on a few illequipped survivors.

Leave the more pleantiful ammunition piles at the military camps and the military weapons too. While deer stands and barns only drop hunting rifles and shotguns and with very limited ammo.

I'd really like to see deer stands downgraded to civilian/hunting/survival loot and ammo spawns reduced to as much as 25-33%