A suggestion to drastically reduce the murders

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

Rocket,

this game is becoming a player/team vs player/team free for all killing spree. It has become uninteresting and 'unrealistic' in terms of the human reactions that would appear in an 'apocalyptic' situation.

I would have expected that the point of a 'zombie apocalypse' game would be survival against the zombie hoards and the risks of infection. Scavenging is one thing. Finding people with complimentary skill sets would be the next one.

You're not going to be able to have a broad set of choices. As you have not set up a complete introductory narrative, we have little idea as to why we've gotten here and for what mission.

My suggestion, which I've made earlier but reiterate and underscore here, is that characters spawn with different skill sets and different levels of those skill sets (medical, mechanics, pilot, etc).

The ability to run around (with superhuman stamina), be impervious to the weather for the most part, already have the right clothes and shoes to go anywhere, etc. is, unfortunately, too simplistic and adds to the player vs player outcome. Those of us who've played Arma II know that the engine is not built for changing clothes, just base equipment. Arma III will allow that. Perhaps this DayZ alpha is simply a proof of concept for an Arma III add-on mod?

Allowing some of the ACE and ACRE features would probably help.

In any case, I will no longer play this mod until some serious modifications to render a far less player vs player outcome and reward more teamplay appears.

Back to Arma II Domination....

[Dazbuzz 0]

The problem with rewarding team play, is that solo players get shafted. Not everyone wants to play their games with others. You cannot group with people 100% of the time. Multiplayer does not inherently mean "play as a group".

[harryzhe 28]

In any case' date=' I will no longer play this mod until some serious modifications to render a far less player vs player outcome and reward more teamplay appears.[/quote']

oh no! 331,620 players just became 331,619!

oh no!

Back to Arma II Domination....

and someone with such good taste, too!

FWIW: i actually like the dynamics of human interaction in dayz. There's already incentive to play as a group, because you can't possibly carry a weapon suited to every single situation, can't be looking in every direction at once, and having friends also going around looking for stuff even when youre not playing benefits you as well.

What you're actually asking for is more incentive to play co-operatively with randoms you don't know. This isn't a thing. Even if everyone had some kind of reason to preserve other players, such as a stupid abstract class system or something, what happens when your group reaches a manageable size and all "roles" are filled? Do you just bring on any other people you encounter, splitting all your loot with them for absolutely no benefit?

The logical next step from here is, if you're alone, and you encounter a group or even a lone guy, how do you know if the guy is in a group, and how do you know if that group are already stocked up with troops and have no possible use for you? Do you chance it and hope they have some use for you, or do you shoot them because there's no feasible way for you to obtain this information without making yourself vulnerable to them? If they have "enough" people to fill all these roles, you're useful as one thing to them - a moving loot spawn.

It makes perfect sense, and is perfectly realistic, that humans divide along "tribal" lines in a post apocalyptic scenario. In primitive human society there would have been every reason to kill neighbouring tribes, and alliances would be based mostly on people you already happened to know and their families.

It might sound brutal, but seeing as there's no pressure for reproduction in dayZ, there's no real reason to leave unknown "stranger tribes" alive. In reality women would often be taken because they're a limiting factor in reproduction and thus a limiting factor in the tribe's ability to obtain new, definite, allies.

I would argue that resources in dayZ are even more scarce, this is particularly true for obtaining the means to resolve violence in an influential way. That is to say, the items which give players most control over their own fate seem to be the most scarce - so it's even more competitive than real primitive societies probably would have been.

Of course there would be cases where you are in a situation that is conducive to being "actually friendly" but they'd be comparatively rare. This is already the case in dayZ.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

The problem with rewarding team play' date=' is that solo players get shafted. Not everyone wants to play their games with others. You cannot group with people 100% of the time. Multiplayer does not inherently mean "play as a group".

[/quote']

No suggestion to stop solo playing. Just at some point you'll need some sort of interaction with others, permanent or temporary.

[Dazbuzz 0]

Which is the problem. What if i do not want to play with other people? Ill be unable to fix a car unless i play with other people? doesnt seem fair. People who team up would get an even greater advantage over solo players than they currently have.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

In any case' date=' I will no longer play this mod until some serious modifications to render a far less player vs player outcome and reward more teamplay appears.[/quote']

oh no! 331,620 players just became 331,619!

oh no!

Back to Arma II Domination....

and someone with such good taste' date=' too!

FWIW: i actually like the dynamics of human interaction in dayz. There's already incentive to play as a group, because you can't possibly carry a weapon suited to every single situation, can't be looking in every direction at once, and having friends also going around looking for stuff even when youre not playing benefits you as well.

What you're actually asking for is more incentive to play co-operatively with randoms you don't know. This isn't a thing. Even if everyone had some kind of reason to preserve other players, such as a stupid abstract class system or something, what happens when your group reaches a manageable size and all "roles" are filled? Do you just bring on any other people you encounter, splitting all your loot with them for absolutely no benefit?

The logical next step from here is, if you're alone, and you encounter a group or even a lone guy, how do you know if the guy is in a group, and how do you know if that group are already stocked up with troops and have no possible use for you? Do you chance it and hope they have some use for you, or do you shoot them because there's no feasible way for you to obtain this information without making yourself vulnerable to them? If they have "enough" people to fill all these roles, you're useful as one thing to them - a moving loot spawn.

It makes perfect sense, and is perfectly realistic, that humans divide along "tribal" lines in a post apocalyptic scenario. In primitive human society there would have been every reason to kill neighbouring tribes, and alliances would be based mostly on people you already happened to know and their families.

It might sound brutal, but seeing as there's no pressure for reproduction in dayZ, there's no real reason to leave unknown "stranger tribes" alive. In reality women would often be taken because they're a limiting factor in reproduction and thus a limiting factor in the tribe's ability to obtain new, definite, allies.

I would argue that resources in dayZ are even more scarce, this is particularly true for obtaining the means to resolve violence in an influential way. That is to say, the items which give players most control over their own fate seem to be the most scarce - so it's even more competitive than real primitive societies probably would have been.

Of course there would be cases where you are in a situation that is conducive to being "actually friendly" but they'd be comparatively rare. This is already the case in dayZ.

[/quote']

Sorry, but your 'tribal' comments are virtually inapplicable here.

With a GAME that has over 300'000 players as you like to point out, and servers that support 50 at a time at most, there is just a giant non-sequitur in your argumentation. There are no 'societies' to speak of.

It probably all comes down to whether playing in some sort of free for all murder game is 'entertainment' for someone or not. I'm dismayed at the number of cyber-sociopaths that this mod seems to spawn.

[harryzhe 28]

Sorry' date=' but your 'tribal' comments are virtually inapplicable here.

With a GAME that has over 300'000 players as you like to point out, and servers that support 50 at a time at most, there is just a giant non-sequitur in your argumentation. There are no 'societies' to speak of.

[/quote']

You've made a statement without any actual reasoned thought presented in it. I'm not saying you havent employed reasoned thought, maybe you have, it's just totally unclear what that reasoned thought was.

Yes "societies" are much smaller in dayZ, some 50 or so at most, but in turn - generally - so are the sizes of friendly groups. Most groups i've encountered number around 3-5.

Given the size of the map and how many resources a server is likely to have, it feels about right (and why wouldnt it - the groups repeatedly reach similar sizes because of the environment's influence on the groups, not the other way around)

So, you're not saying there are no "societies" but that there are no realistically sized ones. The sizes of communities, and the availability of resources, are scaled down universally, not just in this one area. So i'll ask, of what relevance is this information?

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

Which is the problem. What if i do not want to play with other people? Ill be unable to fix a car unless i play with other people? doesnt seem fair. People who team up would get an even greater advantage over solo players than they currently have.

Do you know how to fix a car? Are you skilled in medical procedures? Are you a Jack of All Trades? I doubt it....

[Dazbuzz 0]

I also do not know how to fire a 50 caliber sniper, or administer a blood transfusion. But hey, i can do it ingame. Slicing up what content each play can access in order to force teamwork is not the way to go.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

Sorry' date=' but your 'tribal' comments are virtually inapplicable here.

With a GAME that has over 300'000 players as you like to point out, and servers that support 50 at a time at most, there is just a giant non-sequitur in your argumentation. There are no 'societies' to speak of.

[/quote']

You've made a statement without any actual reasoned thought presented in it. I'm not saying you havent employed reasoned thought, maybe you have, it's just totally unclear what that reasoned thought was.

Yes "societies" are much smaller in dayZ, some 50 or so at most, but in turn - generally - so are the sizes of friendly groups. Most groups i've encountered number around 3-5.

Given the size of the map and how many resources a server is likely to have, it feels about right (and why wouldnt it - the groups repeatedly reach similar sizes because of the environment's influence on the groups, not the other way around)

So, you're not saying there are no "societies" but that there are no realistically sized ones. The sizes of communities, and the availability of resources, are scaled down universally, not just in this one area. So i'll ask, of what relevance is this information?

Carrying over real-life historical, complex settings into a simple very small group, non-complex cyberworld setting like you have with your tribes argument stretches the imagination at best and has virtually no reasonable connection.

At a bare minimum, even tribal societies have division of labor and skills.

The only real-life comparison here would be gangs, which are not tribes but criminal associations.

I did not get into DayZ as a 'zombie apocalypse' set-piece to play 'gangland wars'. If I had wanted that there are a number of cyber-sociopathic games out there for that.

[clever 12]

People would literally just continue to respawn until they got a skillset they wanted.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

People would literally just continue to respawn until they got a skillset they wanted.

That's fine. They would always be missing a skill that some other would have. No Jack of All Trades....

[clever 12]

People would literally just continue to respawn until they got a skillset they wanted.

That's fine. They would always be missing a skill that some other would have. No Jack of All Trades....

Yes, but eventually most people would be the kind of guy who is just better at shooting people. You can't change the mentality of an entire community unless you heavily punish the playstyle, which most people obviously don't want.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

People would literally just continue to respawn until they got a skillset they wanted.

That's fine. They would always be missing a skill that some other would have. No Jack of All Trades....

Yes' date=' but eventually most people would be the kind of guy who is just better at shooting people. You can't change the mentality of an entire community unless you heavily punish the playstyle, which most people obviously don't want.

[/quote']

Then this mod should be called 'gangland wars with incidental zombies'.... It's not a 'zombie apocalypse' game like it was originally intended.

[WhiteTigerShiro 25]

In any case' date=' I will no longer play this mod until some serious modifications to render a far less player vs player outcome and reward more teamplay appears.

[/quote']

There's plenty of perks for teamplay as it is. Just because the perks aren't some magical bonus that suddenly happens when X number of people work together doesn't mean the bonuses aren't there. Between added protection, more people to carry needed medical supplies, having an easier time setting-up a camp and defending it, and easier time repairing broken vehicles, and the ability to loot multiple places at once before regrouping (just to name a few examples), there's already plenty of incentive for people to work together.

[harryzhe 28]

Carrying over real-life historical' date=' complex settings into a simple very small group, non-complex cyberworld setting like you have with your tribes argument stretches the imagination at best and has virtually no reasonable connection.[/quote']

But it just, empirically does...

At a bare minimum' date=' even tribal societies have division of labor and skills.[/quote']

Yeah, it's a thing in dayz too. A stranger is still a stranger. You don't know if he is already part of a massive group who have absolutely no need for your skills.

The only real-life comparison here would be gangs' date=' which are not tribes but criminal associations.[/quote']

Artificial distinction.

I did not get into DayZ as a 'zombie apocalypse' set-piece to play 'gangland wars'. If I had wanted that there are a number of cyber-sociopathic games out there for that.

Never suggested dayZ is a sociopathic game. I play co operatively every single time i play... Purely cause i have pre-existing connections to the dudes i play with. Which is pretty much a mirror of reality.

You keep using the word "sociopathic," as if competing violently for resources isn't something every single organism ever has done for the entirety of life on earth. Sociopathic generally refers to an individual's tendency to favour their own personal interests at all costs. You seem to be complaining that samaritanism and altruism aren't bolstered artificially with gameplay mechanics. Groups being suspicious of other groups, and disposing of them to be safe, is not "sociopathy." By that measure, MOST animals are sociopathic.

The worst part is, your suggestion doesn't actually give any more reason to trust random strangers. They are already a massive help - two sets of eyes is always, always better than one, and if you both have weapons, two barrels being guided by those eyes is absolutely invaluable. It's just that it reaches a point where the group becomes so large that it's a burden to take on any more members. Even in your idealised scenario, this "magic number" of group members would still be a thing, and you have no way to know if someone you encounter is already at that magic number, and not inclined to enlarge their group's size to the detriment of that group.

Loot is always going to be rather finite, and the group sizes are the way they are largely because of that. Eventually, having a guy who's good at mechanics at the expense of 1/5th of the loot you find in order to keep him in supply and keep him useful in combat, is no longer going to be beneficial. If this kind of crap ever gets added, i hope you experience being that mechanic nobody has any use for, and realise how pointless your suggestion is.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

Sorry, HarryO))), but it empirically doesn't.

This 225km space where people log on and log off cannot simulate complex societal and human behavior.

Perhaps a better term would be psychopathic rather than sociopathic, though small groups can represent sociopathic behavior, such as the 'shoot on sight' activity. Gangs in real life are both psychopathic and sociopathic as they act outside of the human norms of most of the people around them.

This mod has degenerated into a gangland situation. As I indicated further above, the zombies are incidental and no longer central. They are too few and concentrated in obvious places.

If a gangland game is what excites you, be my guest. I have no interest in such a game.

[DryGulch 32]

Gangs in real life are both psychopathic and sociopathic as they act outside of the human norms of most of the people around them.

Gang members operate under different societal norms than you or I, those societal norms no longer exist in Day Z.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

Gangs in real life are both psychopathic and sociopathic as they act outside of the human norms of most of the people around them.

Gang members operate under different societal norms than you or I' date=' those societal norms no longer exist in Day Z.

[/quote']

Never argued that they didn't. I stated that they combine elements of psychopathic and sociopathic behavior. You should read statements completely before restating the same thing.

Again, I posit that DayZ is not a 'zombie apocalypse simulation' but a 'gangland simulation'. If that's what you wanted, then fine. I did not. I wanted the former and the current system does not produce that.

[DryGulch 32]

Gangs in real life are both psychopathic and sociopathic as they act outside of the human norms of most of the people around them.

Gang members operate under different societal norms than you or I' date=' those societal norms no longer exist in Day Z.

[/quote']

Never argued that they didn't. I stated that they combine elements of psychopathic and sociopathic behavior. You should read statements completely before restating the same thing.

Again, I posit that DayZ is not a 'zombie apocalypse simulation' but a 'gangland simulation'. If that's what you wanted, then fine. I did not. I wanted the former and the current system does not produce that.

I read it very clearly, you said 'human norms'. Which is blatantly false and very different to societal norms. You should probably check the terms you use for your argument a little better. My reply was borne from the time I've spent researching gangs/ deviant behaviour under a sociological approach, I felt your statement needed clarification.

There's no need to be a smart ass.

[SwissArmy (DayZ) 5]

It reads that you are the smart ass. Normal human norms in the West in the 21st century don't accept gang activity. Whatever time you spent on your research you seem to have lost your perspective of acceptable behavior.

[harryzhe 28]

human norms in the west in the 21st century also don't have 90% of the population as living dead sauntering around towns and a general struggle to even obtain food.

Look at any area in the modern world where firearms and scarcity of resources are combined.

You've still yet to actually clarify anything other than saying "its more complex"

So i say the burden is on you to point out where behaviour of players with guns in dayz is out of line with the behaviour of humans with guns in a real area with scarce resources. Because in my opinion, it's quite close.

[Peninja 0]

What do you mean " It has become uninteresting and 'unrealistic' in terms of the human reactions that would appear in an 'apocalyptic' situation."? This makes no sense. What you see in dayz IS humans reacting to an apocalyptic situation.

[trashcanman 15]

What do you mean " It has become uninteresting and 'unrealistic' in terms of the human reactions that would appear in an 'apocalyptic' situation."? This makes no sense. What you see in dayz IS humans reacting to an apocalyptic situation.

No what you see in Dayz is humans reacting to a video game.

In reality very few people would instantly become serial killers with absolutely no remorse.

What you'd see in reality is people trending toward hunter-gatherer societies because that's in our genes.

There's not a good way to program "psychological benefit" into a game, but companionship is as vital as food and water to being a human being.

[maxim_malcon@yahoo.com 0]

What do you mean " It has become uninteresting and 'unrealistic' in terms of the human reactions that would appear in an 'apocalyptic' situation."? This makes no sense. What you see in dayz IS humans reacting to an apocalyptic situation.

lol, right, when 99% of the population of the city I live in turns into some mindless canabalistic creatures, I'm going to run around with a pistol and shoot every rare survivor that I encounter on sight.

SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN!

*suffers from massive retardation*