Reducing ammo = reduce murders

[dallas 5195]

Atm DayZ is more a murder sim than a survival sim.

Remember the book/movie The Road, where the man has a revolver with two rounds. Where his constant dilemma is whether to save them for himself and the kid or use them to kill. Maybe it would have been another movie if he'd had a shopping cart full of ammunition or a sexed up assault rifle or if the kid was a child prodegy biathlon champion with a preference towards dual wielding desert eagles John Woo style.

Imagine if weapons and ammo was reduced in DayZ. Where you'd be forced to conserve your rounds for special occations and couldn't just relog to refill your magazines. You might get lucky to find a weapon, maybe extremely lucky and find some ammo too, but since you only had a handful of rounds, you wouldn't waste them on the first noob survivor on the beach, who probably wouldn't have anything as valuable as the round it would take to kill him. Maybe you wouldn't waste your ammo, maybe you were all out of ammo, so instead of killing him on sight, you'd try to bluff him and go: "Hand over your beans ...or else?!" Noob just might cough up his beans, noob might make a run for it. Maybe you'd shoot him in the back, maybe you couldn't justify the couple of buttels and let him run off.

Instead of turning bandits into something magical 6th sense easy to detect or punnish them for not participating in the all out coop love parade, how about we try out limiting access to 30round assault rifles and piles of magazines? Limit assault weapons to military instalations and only spawn double-barreled, Enfields and Cz 550 in deer stands.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

[Dreganius (DayZ) 55]

+1 for use of that picture.

But I don't support the idea of just reducing ammo spawns, I'd prefer having half-full clips and interchangeable ammunition types.

[SepticTank 1]

......sigh.....no......

there's no reason for this, you WILL die, it's only a matter of when and where that's in question. get in a group, shoot on sight because of group welfare being at risk, become the bandit that you want to nerf, and realize this game is exactly as it should be minus glitches/dupes/bugs.

unless this game turns into Anno 2070 where a government is eventually established and global votes take place for presidents and policies, THIS is it. do you realize that this is a perfect example of what happens when there are no leaders, no government, no laws?

now you want to have that power, that order, that chain of command, and those law enforcement officials....right? guess what, you can't have that because YOU want to limit ammunition and weapons.

now that melee weapons are in the game, they WILL kill you, just to see what you have on you. if its nothing they can use, hey there's always beans, cooked meat, canteens, bandages, and all the other shit you've just spent 3 hours gathering.

there is no way around player killing, accept it.

[Dreganius (DayZ) 55]

Wow, SepticTank, you sound more idiotic and rude than what you were making out Dallas to be.

He never stated anything like what you accused him of. Might want to get off your high horse before you get shot off.

[Robert Shannon 27]

I actually think it would some what increase the murder rate, some people would kill others for their ammo.

[Lukio (DayZ) 24]

I'm pretty sure that some bandits out there will still happily murder people when they get the chance, no matter how hard it would be to find ammo or a an appropriate weapon that does the job. Although I am not a fan of being a bandit, I like the uncertainty it brings to playing.

TBH i'm more with what Dreganius said and with 1.7.2 and ammo tracking across servers I think we are going in the right directions..

[edonovan 15]

People complain about the infinite respawns and having 100 corpses piled at their feet. This means there is too much ammunition available.

I want to have a weapon without ammunition and have to scrounge each town and barn to find just one round. I want to have a standoff with another player and wonder if their m16 is actually loaded. I want to shudder at the thought of aggroing a zombie because it means I'll lose another precious round. I want to have someone sprinting after me with a hatchet because they believe I have no ammo. I want to actually consider dropping my 1911 for that makarov and 2 rounds because I might not have this chance again.

[SepticTank 1]

North American 1, find me.

Also, I've failed to see where I "accused" him of anything, care to help me understand what you mean?

All I've done is give him a scenario where there is a possibility of having a form of government, or lawful and just rule, then reminded him of what he set into motion. If you limit ammunition and weaponry, you limit the ability for anyone with honorable intentions to police others. It's counter productive to ask for something that destroys any potential for effective law enforcement.

Perhaps you and others don't want to see what this world would really be like if it did fall apart. Sure, there would be some that group together and attempt to reinstate what government they can, but there will be just as many that curse it and damn it with every fiber of their being (just like irl, right now.)

I'm not being an asshole, in fact, it's quite the opposite. I've given a logical argument to his suggestion, and provided scenarios where his request would be ill-advised.

[edonovan 15]

SepticTank: It seems you are arguing that decreasing ammunition will increase lawlessness/banditry.

I think you are mistaken. If anything, people will join ranks against bandits because there will actually be strength in numbers. No more will we fear some idiot hiding in the woods taking out our entire team. He might get one or two of us before he runs out of ammo, but then what? Then we loot our buddies and go on the hunt.

Then it becomes a matter of who can create the largest group and the game takes on a whole new dynamic. You'll get factions roaming the land collecting survivors, either willfully or forcefully. "Join us and we won't kill you; We'll trade your ammunition for our rations."

Then you could have an army collecting gear for you. Players would have a sense of security that their deaths would be avenged. We need more survival and less *pew pew*

[SepticTank 1]

Edo, you're telling me what I already know.

This already takes place, but on a smaller scale, with groups ranging from 3 to 20. Until the game mechanic is changed, this is the only way to combat "bandits." It's nothing new or the possibility of being "new."

In fact, I think from now on I'm calling them psychopaths (what one person views as a bandit or team of bandits, I consider a squad that doesn't want to risk letting a man go that could potentially belong to another group.) To me a psychopath is that one man that just kills all day long, for the sheer joy of seeing the pink mist.

You ask what that one man will do when against 30? Alt+F4. The smart psycho, will kill one, wait and dc. Even if a 30 second timer is included, ghillie snipers will not be found within that time limit, IF he's smart. If not, you will find him.

EDIT: I'd also like to make a very valid point when combat concerns 30 people. You lose track of one another EXTREMELY easy. People can "blend" in with the group, for seconds or minutes before throwing that frag grenade and destroying 10-15 of you (because when in a group this big, even a little dispersion causes panic and paranoia when EVERYONE looks more or less the same.) Meanwhile, the other three members of his group begin firing M240's with intersecting lines of fire, that lay down a wall of lead that kills most if not all of you. And then come the hatchets, those lovely, infinite attack hatchets. Because if they serpentine, stop and start run all the way to you, you will have wasted all your ammo. But hey, they can still collect all your friends' ammunition and weaponry.

[Zeromentor 169]

With guns like the Lee Enfield, being easy to find and relatively one-hitters, ammo means nothing. People will just go where the ammo is more common, or get weapons with a better damage to rarity ratio.

(Like the Lee Enfield)

So no. Sure I believe the game needs less ammo for different weapons (stop spawning guns with 4+ magazines!!!) but it won't slow or stop random murders. People with too much ammo killing random players would turn into people killing random players for their ammo.

[pwnage13371 147]

Making ammo more rare wouldn't change anything. If anything, people would kill for more ammo.

[alexander_q 6]

Make ammo only available from unreliable spawns. If one person finds and empties a helicopter crash then he has ammo, but everyone else is probably bluffing. Unreliable resources also create opportunities for trade between players.

[dallas 5195]

SepticTank I am playing in a pretty large group already. I just remember a couple of weeks back, where some of the strangers you meet, wouldn't attempt to kill you on sight. I've got no problem with player killing that's what makes this mod interesting, however pure PvP isn't. I'm not advocating for PvE servers, I'm just trying to implement a reason, not to automatically kill other players on sight. Atm there are no difference between survivors and bandits, because there's no reason to assume anyone except your tightknit group of friends are friendly or have peaceful intentions.

Sure a fully loaded Enfield is still very dangerous, but there's a difference between having only 10 rounds and carrying 60-80 rounds and additional 50-100 rounds for you sidearm. With 10 rounds, you might miss a shot at a moving target, you might have to save a few rounds for the zombies you alert, also are you going to waste 10% of you ammo killing someone with half a makarov magazine?

Right now I'm rolling with 153 rounds for my Glock, decided to ditch half off my 800 rounds for my mk48 and I'm constantly passing up even more ammo. Bandit skins weren't perfect, bandit heartbeat isn't either, I'm just looking for what the bandit skin did, providing a small incentative to not kill everybody instinctively.

Sure some players will still kill everyone on sight, just so they don't have to search for bandages, beans, ammo themselves or just because they have a spare round or an axe, they are not going away anytime soon. These players will continue to make an interesting challenge, when you're trying to determine whether the stranger you meet is reluctant to fight or a murderous bandit.

I'd just like to suggest a tweak to ammo availability and assault rifles, where you have to manage your ammunition as a limited rescource and not get handed bucket loads of ammo, while matches are nowhere to be found. To see if it has an effect on player killings and average life expectancy. Sure more people will get killed by zombies, but maybe that gives them another reason to band together.

[terrvik 2409]

I totally agree that we should try reducing the amount of ammo. Not just for PvP reasons but to raise tension. I WANT to feel unsafe and with the amount of ammo and how easy it is to find right now I tend to feel safe.

If you had less ammo maybe we would see more scenarios of attempted robberies (like in the awesome video someone put up) and such to avoid wasting ammo.

I simply feel that less ammo will mean a more interesting game experience. :)

And don't give me the argument that you need five magazines to clear Cherno... I don't think you should be able to!

---

EDIT: Btw, I agree with every point Dallas brings up.

[dallas 5195]

I remember respawning without any weapons and after a long search I find a an Enfield with 10 rounds. I pick it up, knowing I'll soon put it on my back for a less loud handgun, but at the moment, I felt great relief: A rifle and 10 whole rounds is alot better than nothing at all. However what felt like a great treasure, soon became trash because deer stands are full of assault rifles and ammo.

[terrvik 2409]

A scoped rifle with 10 bullets should be a treasure. If there was a way to not find magazines but single bullets at loot spawns that would be great.

"But I won't be able to camp with a sniper rifle with so few bullets!"

No, you won't! :)

This would force players to actually think and plan ahead. With less gear you have a lot more to lose. It makes sense in the world of the game and it adds to the experience.

[jtrainz 0]

I think making anything more scarce only increases the "I want what you got" factor, If ammo were rare and I had some I would be considerably more inclined to kill that bastard that hasn't seen me yet to see if he has more.

[federik21 42]

alt + f4 reduces murders too.

yesterday 4 guys in stary sobor used it.

One in a hill, two in the farm (one was bleeding to death), one in a tent.

F*cking annoing.

[Gravelsack 3]

I agree with the OP. Guns and ammo currently make up the vast majority of content in the game. I think the focus should be shifted away from guns and pew-pew so that we can have a more interesting game.

[E-Z 25]

cbf voicing my oppinion, but

septic tank, your a dick

[dallas 5195]

I think making anything more scarce only increases the "I want what you got" factor' date=' If ammo were rare and I had some I would be considerably more inclined to kill that bastard that hasn't seen me yet to see if he has more.

[/quote']

As I said some will kill other players irregardless of whether they have awesome gear or are unarmed, but other players not purely driven by PvP, will try to extend their last rounds, rather than wasting them on people with no or lesser gear. Would you waste your last stanag_SD on a guy with a double barreled shotgun or a makarov if you could avoid it?

[Osiris1 0]

No.

Don't ask for reduced ammo just because someone shot you in the face and people continue to do so.

People are always bitching about realism. Senseless violence and paranoia is realistic for a zombie apocalypse.

If a bandit has so much as one bullet, they'll headshot you when you aren't looking. This won't reduce murders, it will increase them due to the increased demand of ammo. Ammo would become the new hunting knife or watch, encouraging more murder for more goodies.

Then there's the whole factor of zombies, which already do a fairly decent job of breaking your shin by slapping you. We need bullets for those, too.

[alexander_q 6]

No.

Don't ask for reduced ammo just because someone shot you in the face and people continue to do so.

Does that mean there are some arguments for reducing ammo that you wont summarily dismiss?

[James2012 0]

Altho this idea might work, the changing servers, garbing a weapon from stockpile and ammo, and coming back, would still there be there and then reducing ammo would be pointless. Unless they do fix this, then, maybe?