Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GodOfGrain

Facilitating Peaceful Player Interaction: Trade & Reputation

Recommended Posts

Facilitating Peaceful Player Interaction

 

To state the obvious: As of now, we have the “not much to do-situation", combined with a steady supply of tools to kill.

No wonder, the situation is characterized by the often-complained abundance of PvP and little chances for peaceful player interaction.

 

But going forward, the situation will not fundamentally change unless a basic issue is addressed: The risk vs. reward of peaceful interaction is dramatically flawed.

 

Basically you are always better of playing with an organized group than taking the risk of approaching strangers; which is unrealistic and limits gameplay options. I don’t think that I have to elaborate this further. What we need is a structure which rewards interaction with people outside of an established group; while decreasing the risk of doing so.

 

 

The concept I want to propose is based on two things:

 

a )     Increasing the importance of trade

b )     Add a reputation system to facilitate trade

 

The basic idea is that if “trade is required” and “reputation is required for trade” – we will have more interaction and less KoS. The crucial part herein is of course the design of an adequate reputation system. I am aware of previous discussions in that regard (e.g. arbitrary bandit-hero system, based on “kill-counters”). But let’s dive into the trading dimension first.

 

 

Part 1: Making trade necessary for achieving advanced gameplay objectives

 

In my vision for DayZ, the gameplay of a survivor would be driven by the necessity to fulfill his or her basic needs. Obtaining food and other consumable supplies would be the main challenge and occupation. It should be that difficult, that someone new to the game should almost certainly die from hunger, thirst or lack of medication. Even a rather experienced player who successfully obtained all necessary survival items (clothing, storage, tools etc.) should frequently get into dangerous situations; the lack of consumables such as food, water, medical supplies or ammunition.

 

It should be barely possible to survive by scavenging food alone. An experienced player would combine scavenging, hunting and basic forms of horticulture to secure his food supplies. A good combination of these activities should ensure a players survival, unless he is very unlucky. But this would still require him to spend most of his time dedicated to basic survival.

 

Organized group play wouldn’t change this situation. The necessary amount of consumables increases proportionally; and if the group relies on scavenging only, it will be even more difficult to obtain enough food for everyone.

 

 

But there would be one way for a steady food supply: Horticulture.

 

Advanced horticulture should be a very effective way of producing food. But it should be designed in a way that it is not attractive for a large proportion of the player base. Horticulture should require the effort of a larger organized group. Time until harvesting would be about one week! It would be necessary to maintain the fields on a daily basis (watering) while obtaining necessary resources (fertilizer, equipment).

 

(Necessary: Fields cannot be destroyed. Harvesting fruit only possible once food is 100% grown, so the team can organize protection of their crops/ harvesting process at that time.)

 

It should require so much effort (and be a bit tedious) that this option is not appealing to many. The output would be great on the other hand. Five people doing horticulture could trade away about 80% and only consuming 20% themselves.

 

Similar to the horticulture system, there should be additional fields in which you profit from a concerted group effort. For example:

 

a )     Creating ammunition   

b )     Repairing weapons and tools

c )     Creating medicine

 

Besides creating value with the activities mentioned above, additional playstyles would evolve which fit into that system:

·        E.g. bandit clans hunting other players and selling their stuff.

·        Scavenging and hoarding rare items (e.g. rare parts for base building, crafting, vehicles)

·        People going to dangerous loot areas to find and trade rare weapons

·        Groups offering transportation services

·        Medics which go out and help people may ask for a fee for their services

 

While it shouldn’t be strictly necessary to participate in trade, it would be highly beneficial. Otherwise, you may be limited to fight for your survival and not have time to e.g. collect resources for advanced base building.

 

 

Such a system would introduce basic economic principles:

 

·        Scarcity of resources

·        Economics of Scale

·        Competitive advantage by specialization  

·        Value-created is realized by trade

·        Self-regulating market system (over-/undersupply)

·        As a result, a currency would arise on its own. Maybe food, maybe bullets.

 

 

 

Part 2: Reputation System

 

To reward peaceful interaction we can combine the “necessity to trade” with a reputation system.

 

That ain’t easy though. We had our experiences with the notorious hero-bandit system. Simply logging kills does not help representing what is really happening in the game.

 

Here is what I came up with:

 

 

Online database in which you can check information about other players.

 

Perquisite: Single identity across database/ forum / game

 

The database contains the following information for each player:

a )     Player has the possibility to write something about himself

b )     Written input by other players

c )     Numerical input by other players (“trustworthy” or “dangerous”)

d )     Maybe basic stats (e.g. active since, average life-time, max life-time, kills)

 

 

Think of it in terms of the review system used in Ebay.

 

 

You can only enter a “review” in the database after you have met the player in-game.

a )     By talking to a player (standing next to him, scroll-down option)

b )     Identify a dead body

 

You would gain the option to add a comment in the player’s database. You would probably do that out-of-game in the browser; or alternatively there could be an option in the in game menu.

 

You have all the freedom you want with that. Lying is fine. The idea is that once you have enough entries, people would have the possibility to elaborate whether you may be trustworthy or not. This system could of course be abused to a certain degree. Each bandit would have 5-10 positive reviews (from their teammates; but limited by “unique-ID”). But you cannot really forge an account with 500 positive reviews for a dedicated medic or a trustworthy trader.

 

A player could spend time checking a player before agreeing to a trade; carefully reviewing the comments on a player.

 

In addition, the game could provide the possibility to quickly check the reputation in-game by a non-intrusive form such as the heartbeat system when looking at another player at close or medium range. The data available ingame derives from a basic numeric rating (“trustworthy” or “dangerous” votes) besides the written comments.

 

Is that system perfect? – No.

Is it realistic? – No

Is it more realistic than “to know nothing about other players”? – I believe so

Is it good gameplay wise? – I believe so

 

Combining the “necessity to trade” with a reputation system, we would live in a world in which killing is not always the optimal way of playing. You can do that, and it has no arbitrary punishment. But you will get a bad reputation, and you decrease your possibility to trade. In a world with really scarce resources, this may be a bad option.

 

On the other hand, peaceful players will receive a tangible benefit for the risk they are taking in social interaction: You go out, hand out a can of beans to fresh spawn – and they may leave a positive comment for your account; simulating the word of mouth.

 

Please also note that this system would allow skillful bandits to do their job: You can only rate players after “talking” to someone or by identifying a dead body. If you kill without getting identified, no one will know about it.

 

Thanks for your attention. Looking forward to your feedback J

Edited by GodOfGrain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have an informal version of this in the trading thread, based on people's signatures (eg mine below). If we trade successfully they get a reference in the sig. If the worst happens, that too is reflected.

 

Of course this all depends on someone's not being able to change their fundamental identity, such as a second or new Steam ID.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of your premise is flawed. The first part is dead-on: cooperation should be much more valuable than just having a second gunner to watch your 6. The other part I disagree with: interacting with other players should be safer and more rewarding.

 

I made a thread about a "parlay protocol", where once players get within a certain range of each other, they can hit a button and "opt-in" to a parlay/trade screen, eliminating the awkward, dangerous "Friendly/Drop your weapon" crap. But after a lot of replies disagreeing with my premise (meeting people in-game should be easier), I kind of changed my mind. Encountering other humans in a world where resources are scarce and survival is hard should be extremely dangerous. You just don't know what people are going to do. There is no ambiguity about how humans act when they are starving and desperate: They lie, steal, murder, even eat each other.

 

The real problem imo lies in the interface. It should be easier to read people's intentions. In real life, we get so much more information through non-verbal communication, body language, and "vibes." The interface needs to somehow give us more insights into what this other player is about.  I do like the idea of your in-game behavior somehow being reflected visibly in your character.

 

Having some database where you have to alt-tab to read about players and give reviews, that's just not going to work, it either won't be used at all, or won't be accurate enough to be informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of your premise is flawed. The first part is dead-on: cooperation should be much more valuable than just having a second gunner to watch your 6.

 

The other part I disagree with: interacting with other players should be safer and more rewarding. [...]

 

Having some database where you have to alt-tab to read about players and give reviews, that's just not going to work, it either won't be used at all, or won't be accurate enough to be informative. [...]

 

Thanks for your reply. 

 

I indeed think that interaction should be more rewarding. That's what would people drive to interact in this scenario in RL; they need something the stranger may have. That's why I want to push the importance of trade.  

 

You are right though that interaction should still be risky. But I think it would stay that way. 

 

 

 

Having some database where you have to alt-tab to read about players and give reviews, that's just not going to work, it either won't be used at all, or won't be accurate enough to be informative. [...]

 

Well, the database with its written comments would serve as a source of information if you want to set up a trade or other form of cooperation with someone (medic, transport, etc.).

 

Ingame you would have a vague indicator (e.g. heartbeat) for quick information. This would also be based on players reviews, but based on a numerical vote. (Average of "trustworthy" and "dangerous" votes). Besides warning of potential dangerous players (heartbeat) there should further be a indictor for potential peaceful players. If the data is not sufficient (amount of votes) there should be no indicator. Votes should degrade by time, e.g. over last month or last 50 votes or something.

 

You still don't know though. Interaction is still risky. 

 

 

If you can hit "Esc." to enter DayZ Menu, enter sub menu "recent interactions" and then have the option to rate a player, that's not much effort. 

Edited by GodOfGrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think about characters having "sanity", and one of the best ways to replenish your sanity is to come within close proximity of other players?  That would create a need for players to interact regularly, and could allow for more social diversity. Or, it could just make people more vulnerable to bandits. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have an informal version of this in the trading thread, based on people's signatures (eg mine below). If we trade successfully they get a reference in the sig. If the worst happens, that too is reflected.

 

Of course this all depends on someone's not being able to change their fundamental identity, such as a second or new Steam ID.

 

As Mookie stated that Trade post is a great place to start. I have found plenty of people to trade with and even have made new friends to play DayZ with. There is a rep on the trade forums, you kill someone that you are trading with, well... good luck getting a trade with the majority of people on their.

 

This idea has potential. You have my beans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think about characters having "sanity", and one of the best ways to replenish your sanity is to come within close proximity of other players?  That would create a need for players to interact regularly, and could allow for more social diversity. Or, it could just make people more vulnerable to bandits. Thoughts?

Yeah, like if a person is losing their sanity, the client side could spawn some buggy bunnies around the insane person.  I get freaked out every time I hear strange footsteps, cans opening, gunshots, and half-wails of zombies.  Not only would this constantly raise the stress level of the player, but it would also render them a tactical disadvantage, as they would never know which sounds were in their head, or actually another player or zeds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, like if a person is losing their sanity, the client side could spawn some buggy bunnies around the insane person.  I get freaked out every time I hear strange footsteps, cans opening, gunshots, and half-wails of zombies.  Not only would this constantly raise the stress level of the player, but it would also render them a tactical disadvantage, as they would never know which sounds were in their head, or actually another player or zeds.

 

Oh man that's a really good idea. I did some light brainstorming on the effects of sanity loss, but this is better than anything I came up with. Also, good point about being a tactical disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

272.gif

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the day we see forced morality or sanity effects is the day I incinerate my computer. These suggestions come all the time, and they get shot down all the time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the day we see forced morality or sanity effects is the day I incinerate my computer. These suggestions come all the time, and they get shot down all the time. 

 

Look you're clearly passionate about this, and that's rad I'm all for that. But you're not gonna be convincing anyone with a gif and no substantive arguments. The fact that these suggestions come up all the time should tell you something... 

 

I think a lot of us are open-minded, and would be compelled by your point of view, so would you mind actually explaining why this would be so horrible? I'm not married to any ideas. I'm very new to this game, and I come with no biases or pre-occupations about what "real" DayZ is. I just know what I like, speak my mind, and enjoy hearing others do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look you're clearly passionate about this, and that's rad I'm all for that. But you're not gonna be convincing anyone with a gif and no substantive arguments. The fact that these suggestions come up all the time should tell you something... 

 

I think a lot of us are open-minded, and would be compelled by your point of view, so would you mind actually explaining why this would be so horrible? I'm not married to any ideas. I'm very new to this game, and I come with no biases or pre-occupations about what "real" DayZ is. I just know what I like, speak my mind, and enjoy hearing others do the same.

 

Because a morality system punishes people for a certain playstyle. How are you going to determine if a kill was self-defence or cold blooded murder? How do you know your character is even affected badly by killing? Some people are born killers, others faint at the mere thought of blood. 

 

You have a very misconceived view of where this game is going. This is supposed to become the anti-game, as Dean Hall once said. You're talking about punishing people for being violent, and databases where you can look up information. That's just silly. The consequences of your actions should be dynamic and dependent on the environment and circumstance, not hardcoded into the game. And when you remove the ability for people to be complete mysteries to others by giving you access to some eBay-like comments system, you take away all of the uncertainty and fear that comes with meeting people in the game.

 

The thing you need to ask yourself is, how would a meeting go down in real life. You don't pull up a trade screen from 50 yards away, you meet the person and trade. You don't get access to a comment section when meeting someone, you have no idea who they even are. Your complaint is that there's little else to do after gearing up except for getting into firefights. That problem is already being addressed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because a morality system punishes people for a certain playstyle. How are you going to determine if a kill was self-defence or cold blooded murder? How do you know your character is even affected badly by killing? Some people are born killers, others faint at the mere thought of blood. 

 

You have a very misconceived view of where this game is going. This is supposed to become the anti-game, as Dean Hall once said. You're talking about punishing people for being violent, and databases where you can look up information. That's just silly. The consequences of your actions should be dynamic and dependent on the environment and circumstance, not hardcoded into the game. And when you remove the ability for people to be complete mysteries to others by giving you access to some eBay-like comments system, you take away all of the uncertainty and fear that comes with meeting people in the game.

 

The thing you need to ask yourself is, how would a meeting go down in real life. You don't pull up a trade screen from 50 yards away, you meet the person and trade. You don't get access to a comment section when meeting someone, you have no idea who they even are. Your complaint is that there's little else to do after gearing up except for getting into firefights. That problem is already being addressed. 

And if you spend all your time lying on a hill above Cherno or Elektro, shooting anyone unlucky enough to grace your field of vision, you might eventually get jumpy and start hearing things.  Perhaps spending some quality time with living humans could help to reaffirm one's correct perception of reality, in-game.

Edited by emuthreat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you spend all your time lying on a hill above Cherno or Elektro, shooting anyone unlucky enough to grace your field of vision, you might eventually get jumpy and start hearing things.  Perhaps spending some quality time with living humans could help to reaffirm one's correct perception of reality, in-game.

If, might, perhaps, could, ... those are the key words. This stuff isn't set in stone. A fixed morality system sets things in stone. 

 

Morality mechanics have no place in DayZ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, might, perhaps, could, ... those are the key words. This stuff isn't set in stone. A fixed morality system sets things in stone. 

 

Morality mechanics have no place in DayZ. 

I can see that you are pretty adamant about this, maybe I'll see you on the hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how you encourage friendly interaction between players:

Add other dangers that are easier to overcome in groups. For example big zombie groups that are very dangerous and need to be shot or special infected that are harder to kill than normal ones.

 

Right now the only thing that can really kill you are other people, so you might as well shoot them first.

Edited by V-K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how you encourage friendly interaction between players:

Add other dangers that are easier to overcome in groups. For example big zombie groups that are very dangerous and need to be shot or special infected that are harder to kill than normal ones.

 

Right now the only thing that can really kill you are other people, so you might as well shoot them first.

Pretty much this. While in my opinion the player vs player experience (not necessarily just firefights but the whole dynamic of players being the main threat) should be the overlying largest threat the game would be far more interesting if you had longer periods and more intense versions of the PvE mechanic.

 

Doing it through methods like sanity, emotions, feelings, or "built-in psychological mechanics" of any degree would definitely cull the amount of hilltop sniping, fresh spawn hunting, and tactical group firefights in Berezino to a large degree, there's no denying that. The problem is that it's a way of forcing it onto the player base, as rather than passively encouraging things by providing benefits to alternative playstyles, it specifically punishes those who choose to play that way. That doesn't change the dynamic in a good way, all it does is makes a game where the roles are shifted to the exact opposite of where they are now, and no middle ground is achieved.

 

Decreasing the amount of weapons, ammunition, food, water, and general supplies that spawn while increasing the potential places that they can spawn is the first big step, as it gets people to move around and be more likely to encounter each other. This won't stop hostility completely and will create scenarios where people will kill because there are fewer supplies, but it does negate unnecessary murder to a degree and makes it more costly overall, so there will be less "fresh spawn hunting" and "city sniping" than before. The next is allowing for the "alternative" methods (quotes because they should be viable and often-used options) of getting said supplies to be used as an onset to scavenging - so that you have a good amount of hunting, fishing, farming/horticulture, crafting, and otherwise in addition to looting consumables and items. Afterwards the focus needs to be drifted towards group or multiple player actions; stuff that is very difficult or cannot be done at all alone, like fixing up a car or blockading part of a city to create a "safe zone" (by name only, there'd be no game designation or PvP prevention. It'd just be an area with some makeshift walls around it set up by players.)

 

After that you get a more interesting game. You don't completely get rid of people preying on the weak, having large gunfights, or killing for entertainment, because that's not the goal. The goal is for them to happen less often and thus be meaningful when it happened. If the crazy killer clown on the coast (alliteration ftw) was a more unique experience it'd be absolutely terrifying, the problem is that it's just too common. Hence the 'reduction but not elimination.' You'll have a large number of players who will maintain shaky alliances or at least act more neutrally towards others while still allowing people to play lone wolf (albeit more difficult) and even as crazy sadistic murderers, just without any forced penalties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[...] The thing you need to ask yourself is, how would a meeting go down in real life. You don't pull up a trade screen from 50 yards away, you meet the person and trade. You don't get access to a comment section when meeting someone, you have no idea who they even are. [...]

 

You are right, providing players with any information on a player's previous behaviour is unrealistic. That certainly is true.

 

On the other hand, the situation in which you have no information about other player's is unrealistic as well. Such as system would simulate that you have already met a good part of people living in this area over time; and further that you are talking about whom to watch out for.

 

And besides simulating knowledge gained through previous interactions and the word of mouth you are also doing something good gameplay wise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, providing players with any information on a player's previous behaviour is unrealistic. That certainly is true.

 

On the other hand, the situation in which you have no information about other player's is unrealistic as well. Such as system would simulate that you have already met a good part of people living in this area over time; and further that you are talking about whom to watch out for.

 

And besides simulating knowledge gained through previous interactions and the word of mouth you are also doing something good gameplay wise...

 

Well, that leads me to the next thing: When's the last time you've met a geared player who's been alive for more than a day without some kind of face mask? Almost everyone I see is wearing bandanas, payday masks or balaclavas, usually with sunglasses, and all have headgear. At most you see their eyes. And given people's propensity to change clothes now and then, how are you going to recognize most of them? By voice, is one thing which is unique to each player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some kind of karma system is needed, or maybe a "mental health" status, killing a lot of people gives you some kind of negative effects or some such thing. Not sure, might not be popular with the hardcore player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some kind of karma system is needed, or maybe a "mental health" status, killing a lot of people gives you some kind of negative effects or some such thing. Not sure, might not be popular with the hardcore player base.

But some people even in real life killed many humans and didn't care (eg serial killers). You can't enforce these stupid moral mindsets on everyone that doesn't make sense and isn't fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×