The ONLY Realistic Way to Prevent Deathmatching: Make DayZ a Living Hell

[zorisx 7]

I would enjoy more of a horror, must live element. I however don't like the idea of being forced to do something

The purpose of creating such an atmosphere is to amplify the social psychological aspect of the game of never knowing who you are going to come across, let alone if they're going to shoot you.

If we can somehow implement a "proper" zombie behavior whilst maintaining a world of scarcity and fear...then we will have something truly epic.

[wolfstriked 143]

Maybe a system that prevents PVP pr player until you reach a certain level.I just played 3 hours straight.Found an Enfield and a 1911 and was on top of the world.I found myself in a factory town and was slwoly looking for food when a sniper just took me down.That is just not real to me and ruined the experience big time.But that said I would love to do some PVP later on after I tire of the survival aspect.

[envy9o9 3]

No, people are just going to kill MORE so that they can get the other unlucky bastards stuff. It's easier to steal than share.

[zak757 146]

Every time the game gets harder, cooperative play gets worse. No, just stop it. The game is perfect in difficulty as it is now. If you want super fast zombies that kill in 3 hits and can see you a mile away so you can enjoy your "hardcore gamer" badge while absolutely hating your game, go make your own mod.

I play DayZ to take off stress after work. If the game isn't stress relieving, I don't want to play.

[dsi24 227]

Why do people post in this thread if they didn't read OP?

Time Glitch dedicated a whole paragraph of stuff that straight up makes the game easier (when working together)

[Sledgehammer (DayZ) 1]

disagree.

The mod itself is more about getting gear than anything else. There are really only 2 things to do in the game. Get more gear, or kill players.

What happens when you have the best gear? you can only kill players. If you need gear there is also no reason to not kill that other person.

Make another objective or a reason to play beside killing players and getting gear and not only will there be more to do, but also less player killing as your time and resources will be then spent on the new task.

making the game have even scarcer materials will actually make player killing more prevalent as your gonna NEED that guys gear.

[Powell (DayZ) 734]

No' date=' people are just going to kill MORE so that they can get the other unlucky bastards stuff. It's easier to steal than share.

[/quote']

That might help you short term, but long term...

[lev 39]

I would add make ammo and weapons even more scarce. Make melee weapons a bit more common.

Imagine the following scenario. You've only got a makarov with a single magazine left and that's all you have had for the past week. You see another unarmed player. Yeah you can waste your last eight bullets on someone who most likely has very little or maybe it would be better to save your bullets for when you really need it.

As it stands right now the choice presented in that scenario is not possible because you can simply find a new weapon and/or a good deal of ammo the next time you find a building. This change wouldn't eliminate banditry but at least it would give bandits more to think about and reduce the amount of killing for fun game-play that marginalizes the survival aspect of this mod.

[Powell (DayZ) 734]

disagree.

The mod itself is more about getting gear than anything else. There are really only 2 things to do in the game. Get more gear' date=' or kill players.

What happens when you have the best gear? you can only kill players. If you need gear there is also no reason to not kill that other person.

Make another objective or a reason to play beside killing players and getting gear and not only will there be more to do, but also less player killing as your time and resources will be then spent on the new task.

making the game have even scarcer materials will actually make player killing more prevalent as your gonna NEED that guys gear.

[/quote']

isn't that the whole point? You seem sorta hypocritical to OP's post

[bonafide 2]

Rocket needs to make mechanics that are easier with a group but possible to do alone. An obvious example is a blood transfusion. Quick and easy with 2 people, but its entirely possible to fill blood up alone through hunting and cooking. (or collecting beans but that takes fucking forever).

[Refried 14]

Rocket needs to make mechanics that are easier with a group but possible to do alone.

almost every single thing in the game is easier with a group but possible to do alone

[Robert512 12]

The major flaw lies in taking PvP out of a game that is basically PvP. And the experiment that this game is, is about the interaction between players when the social constraints are lowered or actually completely removed.

Frans de Waal once said that if you put 20 randomly selected chimpansees in a train wagon than only one will come out alive. Every unknown chimp is a threath to another chimp. We as humans do a lot better, we can sit with 20 others unknowns in a train. But we need social constraints for that, in some countries that works better than in others, but even then there is no garantuee that these constraint control the fear and our mistrust of the unknown monkey in front of us.

At this stage the game is PvP with (some) added PvE thrown into it, but in a realistic setting, no balancing of firepower in this game, some have it all and most of us have almost nothing other than that they may engage in some group efforts in order to survive, but so will those who have it all, actually those who have it all will most likely be more succesfull in forming groups and becomming dangerous to the others.

That's the experiment at this moment.

[Time Glitch 453]

Why do people post in this thread if they didn't read OP?

Time Glitch dedicated a whole paragraph of stuff that straight up makes the game easier (when working together)

It's a concept that requires more than a few seconds of thought, and that's all most people give a forum post. That's all I give most forum posts =P.

But yes, when you think it through, there are elements in my proposal that actually make the game easier in some respects, provided you team up with other people. There are still parts that make it harder, period...But I think there has to be some of that to deter PvP.

See, I think everyone thinks I want to get rid of PvP. No, I don't. Being afraid of bandits and having the suspense of meeting a new player is one of the best parts of the game. However, right now PvP is the easiest AND best option. If you shoot another player, you have chosen what is both the most efficient AND the option with the least risk.

I want to provide some balance in that decision making process. I would want to put some thought back into the decision of "Should I shoot this guy or team up with him?". Because right now the answer is always "Shoot him".

Example:

Current DayZ: You see another person in Cherno. There's a few zeds around. You see they have better gear than you do, and you have a weapon. They might shoot you. So you shoot them, get their stuff, and move on.

Proposed DayZ: You see another person in Cherno. There's a few zeds around, but you know there's a massive group around that you saw a few minutes ago. They'd hear your gunshots. You yourself only have a mag or two, and you're low on food. You know you couldn't survive a zombie horde investigating your position. The other guy has a better gun than you do, but if you teamed up, you'd have your gun AND his gun fighting with you. You've got some medicine...Maybe a trade! But a decision must be made...

You could kill him, but you'd have to quickly pick up that weapon and deal with the incoming horde. You're hoping he has a lot of mags. You'd get his beans too, but only if you made it.

Or, you could approach him. It's quieter that way, and maybe he can share some beans with you...

So you open a conversation...

And that's where I'll leave it, because the goal has already been reached...The player was willing to engage in conversation rather than shoot on sight because there was more at stake. The old banditry is still an option, but now there's a consequence to it. Just like there's currently a consequence for engaging in conversation in Current DayZ.

And that's what so many people don't understand: THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE FOR KILL-ON-SIGHT. There IS consequence for attempting to be friendly. THAT is why everyone shoots everyone on sight.

We must expand the system to allow for more REASONABLE player choice.

[methodology 4]

Love your ideas, and these are things bandits should support as well. I don't think this would encroach on pvp as much as some of you think it will. It'll just make it more meaningful which is just as important to scumbag bandits like myself. Right now killing feels cheap and meaningless, it's like a quick hit that's over way too quickly and has no greater impact. Bunch of lonewolves running around trying to get the drop on other lonewolves. If people are grouping up it's cause they're usually friends on voip and do it to have fun, not because they actually need each other. If one drops, oh well just run up from the coast and meet up and go loot/kill some more.

But imagine you snipe the medic on a supply teams group. They can't survive properly without their medic, and there's no way he can come back from the coastal spawn without major assistance because of all the roaming zombie packs.

Sure you could have joined the group and had an easier time in the game. But you decide to stick to your bandit ways and kill others anyways. That's a meaningful kill cause you've murdered not just a bag of loot but a human being that could have made your life easier.

Or you've found a fortified settlement and realize killing everyone would be stupid since they're continually bringing in new supplies, which you feel obligated to take. So instead of sitting up on a hill and killing everyone with a sniper rifle, you decide to start stalking small groups or solo runners. You easily dispatch them for their supplies that you can live off of. But eventually the settlement starts sending out teams to flush you out. Luckily you know the surrounding forests well and how to hide from humans and zombies. Crawling around in the rain, in the dark, in the mud cause that's how a true bandit should live. Not like you pansies that think loading up a dmr and sitting around elektro all day for lulz makes you a bandit.

- Medical situations can seriously make this game much more cooperative. Have situations where you need to carry/vehicle someone back to a medical tent at a base.

- Have more medical events that require a second or multiple people. ( you already mentioned a few ideas, need more of these)

- Limit the amount of tools you can carry to like 3.

[Time Glitch 453]

*snip*

I'm adding this to the OP, if you don't mind. By a bandit, for bandits =)

[Splatterpope 1]

But bandit skins did work.

[Maderas 12]

Nothing is ever going to stop players from killing one another no matter how hard you make the game.

[Banicks 55]

Yea the game is starting to die for me. After a months playing there is nothing holding my interest.

[platon.khramtsov@gmail.com 0]

Well, no. I don't agree there is too much murder. I don't agree making the game harder will make people kill eachother less. My friends and I will KILL PEOPLE MORE if it is harder to find resources. We will have to steal theirs. Stop trying to make the game harder. All that does is make if more fucking boring. You already have to run for like 30 minutes to NWAF to get anything good everytime you die, and then spend all day trying to get good shit again.

[Bear ( The Irish ) 0]

I feel that would be a step backwards ... if you make guns food and ammo more scarce then anybody with it becomes a huge target i honestly feel that no matter what we do there will always be PK hungry douches until they get bored.

and if we did make all of this more rare whats going to stop "PK'ers" from Running around AXE'ing people if the have supplies...

^^^

LuLz :D

[Milk (DayZ) 1]

I like the idea of having the game more coop. The idea of having a friend to splint your leg, etc is something I find attractive. However some of your ideas seem crazy and way too hard to make it remotely enjoyable.

[septuscap 42]

And that's where I'll leave it' date=' because the goal has already been reached...The player was willing to engage in conversation rather than shoot on sight because there was more at stake. The old banditry is still an option, but now there's a consequence to it. Just like there's currently a consequence for engaging in conversation in Current DayZ.

[/quote']

In your fucking dreams. In reality, I have my group already, and you're dead the first chance I get.

If there's a zombie horde nearby, I will wait and stalk for my opportunity.

The only way you can create dynamic social interaction in a game like this is if both parties are in a position of relative safety, or have some form of trust (known parties, common friends, etc)

[fundan@gmx.de 82]

I endorse this!

[grittafu 1]

It can be whatever it wants to be aslong as different playstyles are being possible. I don't like this idea unless it favors my lonewolf playstyle.

You SHOULD be able to play alone, thats why food gives blood so you don't have to depend on others. The moment you need to depend on others am out of here.

[Hesher (DayZ) 2]

I dont think removing solo aspect altogether or making it impossible is good. I agree on overall idea thought. Surviving alone should be very hard but possible so if you are a lone wolf you feel like its an achievement on its own. Because many people want to be able to enjoy the solo aspect of surviving the apocalypse and "realistically" they can but of course its much harder than having a group of people on your side.