thoughts/discussion on NPC's

[kichilron 8550]

Not neccesarily. I know for a fact that if I saw a person, id stay hidden and make sure it was an NPC, then definently see if it had a quest for me. I know the KOS players might just shoot them, but theres ways to deter this. Just make it so NPC's drop little or really crappy loot. Then it wouldn't be worth shooting them unless they were hostile.

 

I am not talking about my playstyle, I was just saying what the average player in DayZ would most likely do.

 

Just because you and me wouldn't kill them, doesn't mean that we would even be able to get quests, as most others would just kill them immediately.

[sachad 1016]

You lost me at 'give out quests'. Seriously.

[call him Steve 46]

I would like to see something rare from a NPC in exchange for whatever they want. But the NPC should be Rare like the "man on Green Mt.", he could have a story. Like he wants tools so he can fix the radio tower and if you give him all the things on his list the man will broadcast from the tower, ie the walkie talkie will be useful.

[Evil Minion 943]

No need for (human) NPCs - we got players for this. I would not want humans to behave differently from humans if not zombiefied. And I surely don't want "questgiver NPCs" because thats not the game we are talking of - and it would add some unnecessary static aspects to gameplay. But NPCs in general should be there: zombies and animals.

 

Also any AI that would be good enough to simulate human behavior in a satisfying way would eat so much performance that you could just increase the number of player slots. Plus the only reason to replace players with NPCs is pushing the cultural aspect gameplay in a certain fixed direction.

[100ftjesus 26]

 

You really just underestimate the pleasures you can get from KoS. NPC would be killed just so that you can't get quests from them. You know make if griefy. 

 

 

Personally I find the real pleasure is killing KOS players...

 

I'm not quite sure how adding NPCs would 'ruin the experience' for anyone.  If you want to search them out and get into a 'quest' or task, then so be it, go for it.  If you want to kill them and deny others this option, then fine too.  Although the NPCs would re-spawn anyway, (?) so surely players who shot them would get pretty bored pretty quickly.  Also the NPCs might be able to defend themselves, maybe they're naturally aggressive and would shoot first, resulting in trying to find a way to win them round initially.  Maybe the NPCs would have uber rare loot that can only be unlocked when you have won them over and helped them out.

 

Adding an extra dimension like this would surely enhance the game experience for all, (certainly for lone wolf players) regardless how you choose to play the game.  I find it odd how some people dismiss this idea immediately without discussion. 

 

But the NPC should be Rare like the "man on Green Mt.", he could have a story. Like he wants tools so he can fix the radio tower and if you give him all the things on his list the man will broadcast from the tower, ie the walkie talkie will be useful.

 

I think this is a good idea, although i'm not sure what use a broadcast would be...?

[General Zod 1118]

Personally I find the real pleasure is killing KOS players...

 

I'm not quite sure how adding NPCs would 'ruin the experience' for anyone. 

By turning a player driven survival game into another MMO with quest.

[100ftjesus 26]

By turning a player driven survival game into another MMO with quest.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting, (well i'm certainly not) trying to turn the game into anything else.

 

NPCs could just be another element of the game you can either engage with or ignore.  In my mind NPCs would not be a required part of the game, merely an option.  A little bit like the current fishing mechanic, how many KOS players (and by this I mean the many players who just tool up and go killing for the sheer fun of it) do you think currently use this element of the game, scavenging around trying to find the necessary tools and then patiently waiting by the waters edge for a bite? How much of the survival game are they actually experiencing?

 

I for one am not talking about changing the game from it's current form, just adding to it.

[General Zod 1118]

I for one am not talking about changing the game from it's current form, just adding to it.

Yes you are.

Player driven means, player driven, not NPC given quests and items. It changes the basic concept of how we get the things we need to survive. 

[100ftjesus 26]

Yes you are.

 

 

Er, actually no i'm not.

It's clear you have one opinion about this and I another.

 

Player driven means, player driven, not NPC given quests and items. 

Yes, i'm aware of what player driven means, thanks for taking the time to try and explain it though.   These two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

Anyway I was originally responding to this particular part of your post - 

 

You really just underestimate the pleasures you can get from KoS. NPC would be killed just so that you can't get quests from them. 

 

rather than getting into the semantics of the game in general.

[byrgesen 1341]

Personally ive never ever liked any of the filthy DayZ mod mods with NPC :) But thats just me.

As far as im concerned, it does not belong in this game at all, everything should be player controlled and player organized, we just need the right tools to do so.

 

Not neccesarily. I know for a fact that if I saw a person, id stay hidden and make sure it was an NPC, then definently see if it had a quest for me. I know the KOS players might just shoot them, but theres ways to deter this. Just make it so NPC's drop little or really crappy loot. Then it wouldn't be worth shooting them unless they were hostile.

 

Im sorry for "pissing on your parade" mate, but the game clearly shows, from the very beginning of the mod actually, that people dont give 2 cents about your gear, 99% of the time, when you are shot. You are simply shot because they can shoot you.

Same would happen to NPC's and actually i believe, that people will most likely kill NPC's more often, because they know it will "f***" with more players' gameplay, then killing individual players.

The amount of people playing this game, purely to ruin other peoples day, is incredible high, so i find it abit to naive that you believe NPC's will be left alone, most of the time :)

Not to mention the inevitable campers, that will be at every single NPC on the map, making it pretty much impossible to get anywhere near them, without getting killed.

The only "defense" against such behavior, is making making NPC's immortal, or creating a "safezone" around them where damage cant be taken, and that is IMHO a very very bad design decision for this game.

[Grundlesmuggler 41]

There was a cool mod, don't remember the name because it was so long ago, but you could fly to a southern island when you geared up.  It was a castle/military base with trucks and barracks and such with high value loot but protected by "NPC" survivors.  They seemed pretty hard.  High ground snipers, AR wielding ground dudes.  You had to clear the area before you can loot otherwise they would eventually kill you.  Added another element to the game which was pretty cool.  

 

Basically, they should leave that decision up to whoever want to mod it in.  I think the main problem is that people are trying to compare DayZ SA to the Dayz Mod but using features not found in original DayZ mod.  DayZ SA will feature the guns, the vehicles, some aspect of building, the loot systems, a map with a nice flow from civilian coastline to military northwest, and hopefully larger servers.  Anything else on top will be left up to the community to mod.  This is my opinion based on what I have seen and read about so far.

[danceswithzeds 22]

This thread makes no sense to me. The engine cant even give us more than a few zombies per city. So how or why would we want npcs to bog down this game and not even get to fight or kill them?

[solodude23 649]

Definitely a no from me; NPCs will only detract from the unpredictability and tension of the game. Increased server pop, more zeds, and more (types) of animals is all I need.

[d.walker43 196]

After reading these conversations, I see most people don't want NPC's because the game is supposed to be player driven. I have 2 arguments against this.

 

1-just because they are there, doesn't mean you have to use them. For example, in Minecraft or something lets say I hate all of the different animals. However im not going to stop playing the game because of this. Ill simply ignore them and stay out of there way. Same exact thing can be done with NPC's in-game. You could do whatever you wanted to do with them, and if you hated them that much, simply ignore them completely or kill any that you see. Don't really understand why this would be an immersion-breaker.

 

2-player driven is a concept that would theoretically work, however obviously it doesn't work too well. In a real life scenario, people would trust each other, help each other, and all of that. But in a game where there is no punishment, physically mentally or emotionally, players will always just kill each other. In order for this to be prevented, a few things need to happen. 1, there needs to be more things to do beside kill. survival, killing zombies, and NPC quests would all help with this. 2, more players per server. Even with 40, you rarely find people. They would be far more common irl, and also, if there were tons more people you actually could set up bases, put towns under your control, etc. 40 just isn't enough. 3, some sort of punishment system for killing rampages. Don't really know what type of system yet, ive thought about it a lot but something needs to happen. If people actually played how they would in real life and didn't just kill each other a ton, the player driven concept would totally work.

[Whyherro123 2283]

After reading these conversations, I see most people don't want NPC's because the game is supposed to be player driven. I have 2 arguments against this.

 

1-just because they are there, doesn't mean you have to use them. For example, in Minecraft or something lets say I hate all of the different animals. However im not going to stop playing the game because of this. Ill simply ignore them and stay out of there way. Same exact thing can be done with NPC's in-game. You could do whatever you wanted to do with them, and if you hated them that much, simply ignore them completely or kill any that you see. Don't really understand why this would be an immersion-breaker.

 

2-player driven is a concept that would theoretically work, however obviously it doesn't work too well. In a real life scenario, people would trust each other, help each other, and all of that. But in a game where there is no punishment, physically mentally or emotionally, players will always just kill each other. In order for this to be prevented, a few things need to happen. 1, there needs to be more things to do beside kill. survival, killing zombies, and NPC quests would all help with this. 2, more players per server. Even with 40, you rarely find people. They would be far more common irl, and also, if there were tons more people you actually could set up bases, put towns under your control, etc. 40 just isn't enough. 3, some sort of punishment system for killing rampages. Don't really know what type of system yet, ive thought about it a lot but something needs to happen. If people actually played how they would in real life and didn't just kill each other a ton, the player driven concept would totally work.

The only reason I would want NPCs in the game is because there are too few players (IMO) to adequately flesh out the map.

 

With 40 player servers, each player has 225km²/40 = 5.625 km² to themselves (Ex; an area a little bigger than Cherno proper)

With 75 player servers, each player has 225km²/75 = 3 km² to themselves (Ex: pretty much Berezino)

With 100 player servers,  each player has 225km²/100 = 2.25 km² to themselves (Ex: Pretty much Svetlo)

 

Which is still a LOT of empty space, not even including the fact that players will cluster around "good" loot spawns. With NPC's it would

1) Make the map feel a little less empty (YMMV, but IMO, a lot more people would've survived a TSC. 40, hell, even 100 is too low)

2) Make player-driven economy a possibility. With actual players, nothing you do will necessarily make them listen to you (log off, kill themselves out of spite, etc) With NPC's, things like slavery, small villages, etc are far more possible than with "only" 40/50/100 players.

[General Zod 1118]

2-player driven is a concept that would theoretically work, however obviously it doesn't work too well. In a real life scenario, people would trust each other, help each other, and all of that. 

You base that on what ? Because if you look back at what our species has done to each other in past 100 years. I'd say We spend more time and efforkilling other or trying to find better ways to do that than trusting and helping. 

Slavery

Holocaust

Nuking each other

Bio and chem weapons

The list is long

 

Seriously based on what we did in the past I find it hard to believe than in case of total society collapse we would start all of the sudden be nice to each other. You say we would not be at each others throats if we had to fight for food scraps. We don't even need reason that big. We kill each other for whatever reason we can come up with. Skin colour, religion, nationality, subculture, different part of the town, different football team. 

 

 

Whyherro123

d.walker43

 

Your faith in human race is admirable, but since our ancestors have climbed down that tree ages ago, we did far more bad than good. 

Edited October 30, 2014 by General Zod

[snwh 24]

I really don't want NPC's. Not in the traditional sense.

 

What I would like, thats sorta like NPC's, is ghost radio transmitions, coming from some abandoned base up north, perhaps one the player can't even get to. And things like, helicopter crashes starting as a flaming helicopter int he sky, desperately signalling for help before being turned into a twisted pile of scrapmetal and blood. (and god help the survivor who is standing under it)

[d.walker43 196]

You base that on what ? Because if you look back at what our species has done to each other in past 100 years. I'd say We spend more time and efforkilling other or trying to find better ways to do that than trusting and helping. 

Slavery

Holocaust

Nuking each other

Bio and chem weapons

The list is long

 

Seriously based on what we did in the past I find it hard to believe than in case of total society collapse we would start all of the sudden be nice to each other. You say we would not be at each others throats if we had to fight for food scraps. We don't even need reason that big. We kill each other for whatever reason we can come up with. Skin colour, religion, nationality, subculture, different part of the town, different football team. 

 

 

Whyherro123

d.walker43

 

Your faith in human race is admirable, but since our ancestors have climbed down that tree ages ago, we did far more bad than good. 

You have a point. But, your talking more about different countries going to war, different races, etc. millions of people in each side. In a scenario like dayz, its a matter of trusting 1 person or a small group. Obviously if you were starving, you might kill for food, that's completely acceptable and understandable. I would kill if I needed to for survival. However, irl, if you have everything you need, 4 working vehicles, a whole house of food, 17 different guns, and ammo for everything, I think that if you saw another person who needed something, you would gladly help them.

 

Also, you cant really blame all of the humans before us for some of the things you listed. Most of the things you listed were caused by 1 person, or 1 small group of people. Just like it theoretically should be in dayz, there will always be a few people who will only kill and such.

 

slavery-don't have a response to this one, other then it was considered normal for 100's of years. now though, it would be considered illegal, immoral, and frowned upon greatly.

holocaust-caused by hitler and his fellow leaders

nukes-...when has anybody nuked each other? only example I can think of would be atom bombing japan, which actually saved lives because if a land invasion of japan happened, far more Japanese and americans would have been killed. the war would have gone on longer and more would have died. it was more of a scare tactic if anything.

bio/chem weapons-caused by crazies over in middle east who want to take over world, usually get shot pretty soon afterward though

 

I see your point, I hope you see mine. Anything needs clarification don't hesitate to ask. thanks.

[General Zod 1118]

You have a point. But, your talking more about different countries going to war, different races, etc. millions of people in each side. In a scenario like dayz, its a matter of trusting 1 person or a small group. Obviously if you were starving, you might kill for food, that's completely acceptable and understandable. I would kill if I needed to for survival. However, irl, if you have everything you need, 4 working vehicles, a whole house of food, 17 different guns, and ammo for everything, I think that if you saw another person who needed something, you would gladly help them.

 

Also, you cant really blame all of the humans before us for some of the things you listed. Most of the things you listed were caused by 1 person, or 1 small group of people. Just like it theoretically should be in dayz, there will always be a few people who will only kill and such.

 

1. It's only a matter of scale

2. Yes I can, German soldiers followed Hitler's orders. They followed his ideology, which makes them equally guilty.  

Yes US nuking japan. While it might or might not have saved lives, is still using nuclear weapon in conventional conflict and against CIVILIAN population.

Edited October 30, 2014 by General Zod

[Whyherro123 2283]

1. It's only a matter of scale

2. Yes I can, German soldiers followed Hitler's orders. They followed his ideology, which makes them equally guilty.  

Yes US nuking japan. While it might or might not have saved lives, is still using nuclear weapon in conventional conflict and against CIVILIAN population.

Please, let us leave such loaded and ultimately entirely objective topics out of this thread.

[General Zod 1118]

Please, let us leave such loaded and ultimately entirely objective topics out of this thread.

True we are digressing. 

I'm opposed to NPC simply because it's not a game where you should get things from NPC for brining X of Y items or for killing 10 zeds in some area. 

Edited October 30, 2014 by General Zod

[d.walker43 196]

1. It's only a matter of scale

2. Yes I can, German soldiers followed Hitler's orders. They followed his ideology, which makes them equally guilty.  

Yes US nuking japan. While it might or might not have saved lives, is still using nuclear weapon in conventional conflict and against CIVILIAN population.

 

2-not neccesarily, its hard to explain why though. go look up the Milgram experiments, they were scientific experiments studying humans blind obedience to authority. Has a lot to do with this. Ill sum it up, they knew that hitler was in charge, so he would be the one punished. they were deflecting responsibility, and also were probably in fear for their own lives from him.

 

3-not true, the 2 towns that were bombed had large military factories and installations in them, that is why they were chosen. If they wanted to hit civilians, they would have bombed Tokyo and other large population cities.

[Whyherro123 2283]

2-not neccesarily, its hard to explain why though. go look up the Milgram experiments, they were scientific experiments studying humans blind obedience to authority. Has a lot to do with this. Ill sum it up, they knew that hitler was in charge, so he would be the one punished. they were deflecting responsibility, and also were probably in fear for their own lives from him.

 

3-not true, the 2 towns that were bombed had large military factories and installations in them, that is why they were chosen. If they wanted to hit civilians, they would have bombed Tokyo and other large population cities.

 

2) Wehrmacht =/= Nazi member. As a matter of fact, most German soldiers (and sailors, etc) were not members of the Nazi party, and were conscripted. Let us leave it at that.

3) Yes, the Atomic bombs ultimately saved both American and Japanese lives. However, the US DID bomb Tokyo and other civilian centers, with truly HORRENDOUS casualties. Look up "Firebombing of Tokyo".

 

Can we get back on topic. please? If the thread continues in this direction, it will only end in pain, Godwin's Law, and mass-application of the mighty Banhammer.

[snwh 24]

In interest of getting this topic back on track ;)

 

 

I would personally rather the devs put energy towards making players act like npc's than putting in actual npc's.

 

That is to say, rather than go trade with an npc, work on ways to make people want to trade with other players.

 

Or instead of an npc with quests, work on ways for players to spread interesting information, or want to team up for objectives.

 

Basically, rather than people working with npc's I want to see people working with people.

 

 

A lot of people don't like the idea of cutting down on KoS, banditry, and in a way they're right. It shouldn't be forcibly removed, but it should be made less lucrative, and there should be other equally viable options out there.

 

 

argh! and I said I was going to try and re-rail this thread! What have I done?!?!

[bluesydave 28]

 

2) Wehrmacht =/= Nazi member. As a matter of fact, most German soldiers (and sailors, etc) were not members of the Nazi party, and were conscripted. Let us leave it at that.

3) Yes, the Atomic bombs ultimately saved both American and Japanese lives. However, the US DID bomb Tokyo and other civilian centers, with truly HORRENDOUS casualties. Look up "Firebombing of Tokyo".

 

Can we get back on topic. please? If the thread continues in this direction, it will only end in pain, Godwin's Law, and mass-application of the mighty Banhammer.

 

I agree, and I think many German troops would have been quite isolated from what the Nazi Party was truly up to. There was little communication apart from word of mouth in those times.