Implement a Moral stat?

[Photonic 6]

We need a way to discourage kill on sight but it also isn't fair to force someone to play a style they don't want to. So we need bonuses and modifiers that are fair on both sides of the fence. What I just thought of only caters to the "social" player. 

 

In the goal of making this an immersive experience, regardless of nutrition, hydration or gear set ..people in general tend to break down quicker without social contact. 

 

I think it would be cool to add a modifier that affects "healthy" status by say ..making you more anxious and burn more calories at rest or rather all the time ... because you are lonely, afraid ,paranoid etc and havent spent time around other players. 

 

The longer you are away from other people you eventually cap some type of insanity modifier, this encourages you to hoard more than normal players and go through more food and items which of course ..entices you to kill more people on sight for their loot. But most new spawns will succumb to this so this would be cool.

 

if you really want to play with others, you will find food more filling, water lasts longer ... when you are doing "social" things.

 

being a lone wolf who kills players on sight will eventually result in your having an "annoying" but not unplayable level of hunger and thirst. but things like a simple camp fire, a tent OR music ...could allow you to sustain yourself and "restore" some of your social sanity. 

 

Whereas players who choose to interact with other players, being around other living players also serves the same goal. 

 

Just an idea ... Along with hunger and thirst ..adding a third dynamic of "Mood" to overall health , (with interacting with others being the strongest reward ..but with plenty of other options for the anti social player also ...) would make things a lot more interesting. 

 

You could even scale it with player intent AND character via actions. the more a player kills other players, the less benefit he gains "mood wise" from being with other players but he can still choose solitary activies such as ...being around a fireplace or in a structure he has built. These will restore his mood. 

 

you kill too much, and you stop gaining any benefit from being around players. Since it adjusts to fit your characters play style. But a person who chooses to work with others will always gain an advantage in mood regen since social characters will have higher moods as long as they are together, regardless of place or time. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by Photonic

[SomeCallMeNomad (DayZ) 89]

Hm, very interesting, definitely something to think about

[BugZ (DayZ) 49]

This is not sims no

[nokyookami 63]

Seems Far to Unrealistic to Require More Food and Water to Survive Just Because you Are Surviving Alone

Some People Arent Lone Wolves Because they Want to Kill Players Either So Doesnt Realy Discourage KOS Just Makes Hermits KOS More 

Most Bandits or KOS'ers  i Have Seen Roam in Packs So Would Be Uneffected

And Forcing Player Interaction isnt Realistic in an Apocolypse Survival or Anywere Realy i think Should Always Be a Choice Not a Forced thing
Not all People are Social People Who Need 24/7 Companionship to Survive and Developers Would Be ones Drawing the Line For Every Individual Telling them What they Need Which i Feel Ruins the Immersion of a Simulator myself

[phoboss 224]

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/165443-how-to-fix-kos-and-banditry-with-this-great-system/

[Evil Minion 943]

No - thats not how morality works. If you do good because you expect a reward or fear punishment you are not a good person. And if you only ever do good if you are rewarded you are a bad person.

[Elle 562]

STOP trying to FORCE me to play with others - damn.

[ValentinBk (DayZ) 60]

We need a way to discourage kill on sight

I stopped reading here. The beauty in the game is that there is nothing encouraged\discouraged. You have the world, you have other players, survive the way you see it right.

Edited October 1, 2014 by ValentinBk

[JonEllisDee 26]

I'm against any kind of moral judgement of the actions of the players, specially in a game that takes place in an enviroment of anarchy, morality shouldn't be something to take into account, every player is a monster that tries to survive other monsters, it's the survival of the fittest in all its glory, it doesn't matter if what you do is 'right' or 'wrong', it only matters if you survive or not.

 

No one should have advantages or disadvantages based on the morality of their actions (which is different for everyone), in my opinion one of the goals of this game and an ultimate success, would be making players to do things that they don't want to do.

 

Players that kills on sight makes sense in this game, you shouldn't care about anyone else but yourself, your friends are not going to be there for long.

Edited October 2, 2014 by JonEllisDee

[Cpanther 221]

Punishing people for playing alone isn't the solution...but punishing people for being jerks and idiots it is. Of course, the people that is enjoying this simple shooter mechanics, will tell you that is nothing wrong with it, to the very day when all the servers shut down and DayZ is removed from Steam.

[SomeCallMeNomad (DayZ) 89]

I stopped reading here. The beauty is the game that there is nothing encouraged\discouraged. You have the world, you have other players, survive the way you see it right.

Kind of what I thought when I read that

[ob1korobi 125]

I like playing with myself. Wait.... that came out wrong.

[ob1korobi 125]

Just picture a world without facebook and all of the lovely little things we have in real life. Take all of that away except you only have a flashlight and a battery. That alone is enough to make you kill someone on sight.

[pale1776 375]

Personally, I want a hero skin I can spawn with in the shirt selection menu after I give 100 blood/saline bags XD

And you people crying about how forcing you to not show off your l33t scout sniper tactics by killing everything is unrealistic, how realistic is it that YOU RESPAWN AFTER DEATH? I mean, it sure breaks MY immersion to kill a guy and have him run back to me, maybe add a one hour cool down? So that way he wont ruin mine?

I mean really, noone can kill without some sort of mental change. Still, I just prefer the optional hero/bandit clothes available as a spawn

[scriptfactory 620]

No - thats not how morality works. If you do good because you expect a reward or fear punishment you are not a good person. And if you only ever do good if you are rewarded you are a bad person.

 

This is the only reason ANYONE ever doesn't anything "good". There is always an intrinsic or extrinsic reward of some kind. Humans are just selfish creatures.

 

Players that kills on sight makes sense in this game, social players don't, there's no society in DayZ and you shouldn't care about anyone else but yourself, your friends are not going to be there for long.

I'm sick of this getting thrown around. Societies form because humans are social creatures. It is a part of human psychology (and physiology) to make friends and create groups/communities. Just because there is no society (singular) does not mean societies (plural) will not form.

 

 

I stopped reading here. The beauty in the game is that there is nothing encouraged\discouraged. You have the world, you have other players, survive the way you see it right.

 

KoS is implicitly encouraged in DayZ. I wrote something on Reddit about this today:

 

 

Look at it like this; when two random groups or players interact with each other there are several possible actions they can take. I will just break them down into 2 broad categories. Violent interactions (KoS) and non-violent (neutral, friendly). So if everything is equal between these two random groups the reward/loss table looks a bit like this.

 

                 | KoS  | Neutral/Friendly

KoS              |  0/0 | 1/-1

Neutral/Friendly | -1/1 | 0/0

 

As you can see, there is no reason anyone should ever choose peace over violence in a permadeath game like this if they want to be rewarded for their actions. If both players choose peace neither player will benefit, it is a stalemate. But the player that chooses violent interaction will always either be rewarded or suffer no additional penalty for his actions. So there is absolutely no reason to ever NOT attempt to KoS since, by design, the game offers no reward for peaceful interactions. The best you can hope for is to not be killed.

[Evil Minion 943]

There is always an intrinsic or extrinsic reward of some kind.

Only speaking of expected extrinsic reward here.

 

But its true that KoS is encouraged right now - however, the payoff matrix is actually more like the one from the Hawk/Dove game as being hostile has a risk involved as well.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Evil Minion

[scriptfactory 620]

But its true that KoS is encouraged right now - however, the payoff matrix is actually more like the one form the Hawk/Dove game as being hostile has a risk involved as well.

 

I am not an economist. I was only talking about the advantage/disadvantage upon entering into a scenario based on a violent/non-violent strategy.

Could you explain why you think DayZ is more like a Hawk-Dove game, though? :)

[ValentinBk (DayZ) 60]

KoS is implicitly encouraged in DayZ. I wrote something on Reddit about this today:

 

Basically like Evil Minion said, KOS is not a win-win situation and involves a lot of risk. Who said you will kill (hell, even hit) the other player on first shot?  The hunter can easily become the hunted and that's part of the beauty of this game. If DayZ ever starts actively encouraging any playstile, I will probably just stop playing it.

[Cpanther 221]

Only speaking of expected extrinsic reward here.

 

But its true that KoS is encouraged right now - however, the payoff matrix is actually more like the one from the Hawk/Dove game as being hostile has a risk involved as well.

 

Not exactly...being hostile is the "easy" way out.. Killing someone on sight reduces the chances of getting yourself killed by 100% (Zero Risk), being neutral or friendly increases the chances that you will be kill by 60%. (High Risk). So the only viable option is to kill everything.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Cpanther

[Cpanther 221]

D'oh!

Edited October 1, 2014 by Cpanther

[scriptfactory 620]

Basically like Evil Minion said, KOS is not a win-win situation and involves a lot of risk. Who said you will kill (hell, even hit) the other player on first shot?  The hunter can easily become the hunted and that's part of the beauty of this game. If DayZ ever starts actively encouraging any playstile, I will probably just stop playing it.

 

I actually never said KoS is a win-win situation. I am merely talking about advantages/disadvantages when two random groups/players encounter each other in DayZ. Not the outcome. The non-KoSer is immediately placed at a disadvantage.

[ValentinBk (DayZ) 60]

I actually never said KoS is a win-win situation. I am merely talking about advantages/disadvantages when two random groups/players encounter each other in DayZ. Not the outcome. The non-KoSer is immediately placed at a disadvantage.

Like I previously said, its not black and white. I don't think you can simply take outcome out of the equation.

[Cpanther 221]

I actually never said KoS is a win-win situation. I am merely talking about advantages/disadvantages when two random groups/players encounter each other in DayZ. Not the outcome. The non-KoSer is immediately placed at a disadvantage.

 

That is my point too...KoSers plays with a zero risk factor, by killing everything you see you chances of doing well in the game is practically 100%... which means that every other way to play the game is stupid, or "inefficient". That reduces your options to only one... KILL or be killed. Which means that you can only play the game ONE WAY.

[scriptfactory 620]

Like I previously said, its not black and white. I don't think you can simply take outcome out of the equation.

 

Should we look at the possible outcomes? I am assuming that KoSers accept death as a normal part of the game so, for them, death isn't really a negative factor.

• If a KoSer meets another KoSer there will be a shootout with the more perceptive person getting a distinct advantage due to noticing the other player first. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that there is a 50% chance of death for either player in this scenario. The surviving player gets all gear from other player.
• If a KoSer meets a non-KoSer the aggressor will most likely win. Let's say that there is a 75% chance of death for the non-KoSer. The surviving player gets all gear from other player.
• If a non-KoSer meets another non-KoSer then the best than can be hoped for is a can of beans or an untrustworthy traveling companion.

So if we just take these three scenarios into account, along with the fact that KoSers don't care if they die, it appears that always choosing to KoS will more often result in an advantageous position for the KoSer, especially as their skill with the game increases and they are able to put themselves into more advantageous positions over other players.

Do you see the situation differently?

[Evil Minion 943]

Lets say the overall loot in an area (including the loot you already own) is the price and you meet another player. Lets say you could only play hostile or friendly then the possible outcomes are:

• Both players are hostile. The expected payoff is your expected improval of gear times the probability of you winning the fight (can be negative if you lose valuable gear during the fight and do not get compensation!) minus the value of your gear times the probability of you losing the fight. Call it X.
• Both players are friendly. The expected payoff is roughly half the the expected improval of gear from looting alone plus the expected improval of gear from trading. Call this T.
• One player is hostile the other is friendly.
  • The expected payoff for the hostile player is the expected improval of gear both counting killing the friendly player and driving him off. Call this W
  • The expected payoff for the friendly player is somewhere between zero and the value of his gear depending on his chances of getting out alive. Call this L

Now from the above we can surely say that W>X as a fight between hostile players increases the risk of death or gear destruction for both of them and T>L because T>0 and 0>=L. We can also expect W>=T because the possible price includes more items and the hostile player will not have a rival in looting. Trade might make it more difficult but we will assume the expected payoff from killing to be roughly the same as the expected payoff from trading.

 

Thus we get W>=T>0>=L. Assume the area holds some items interesting for both players - which we possibly can - we can go on with W>T>L.

 

If we now get L>X we have a Hawk/Dove situation. If we don't have this we got a Prisoners Dilemma. This might depend on the gear status and the chance to survive such an encounter as a friendly one.

 

In the end its much more complicated as we usually got asymmetric situations that are iterated with multiple different players - here the distribution of playstyles has impact as well - and there are way more playstyles than the pure strategies "hostile" or "friendly" and as they interact the community "evolves".

 

This also shows some reasons for friendly behavior and thats why I think that is is absolutely vital to be able to recognise specific individuals ingame via non-changeable aspects like face or body shape (or even name though I don't like this because it feels unimmersive). However, I do not agree with tracking and publishing stats or "karma points" as I consider this meta-gaming. And I totally disagree with giving ingame advantages for following a specific moral codex. Who knows which values will develop within (groups inside) the community if they are not imposed upon the players from the outside?

Edited October 2, 2014 by Evil Minion