Mental health / Morale

[WolfgangErikson 127]

I just don't see how people can thing these ideas are good. Why isn't aren't the risks and rewards that evolve organically from natural player interactions enough? Secondly? I'm also sick of hearing people request a system that changes appearance based on how "good" a person: How does that make any sense. You cannot just look at someone and automatically know that they have been killing people to survive. Just because some is "dirty" doesn't mean they are bad-guys. This logic is so flawed it hurts: Wow, I've been hanging around these other people, now I am magically well groomed, and people can tell that I'm cool. Changing the way a character appears to "reveal" their playstyle is stupid because it takes away the elements of needing to decide to trust or distrust someone. If they take away that, where is the thrill? Are people just looking for an official reason to be able to kill those people that would try to kill you? Are you that unwilling to play the trust game? Are you that unwilling to have to make the tough decisions like whether or not you should I kill him now or call out to him and try to help? Do you really want to just look at someone and know...? I don't.

 

How on earth can people ask for arbitrary systems that artificially reward one play-style over another. The beauty of DayZ is that much of the game and the way you learn to survive comes from the emergent gameplay that forms when based on a simple set of rules. As soon as you create rules to govern that emergent gameplay, it loses it's flavor and simply becomes a path to follow.

Edited April 11, 2015 by WolfgangErikson

[WolfgangErikson 127]

Furthermore, the point of role playing games (and yes, DayZ is a RPG) is to create a character around how YOU want to play, projecting the emotions you choose onto your "blank-slate" character. I don't need a system telling me I have to do certain things to be "good"; I can just declare my character to be good, and act accordingly. I don't need a system to boost my characters morale by not killing people, because my ACTUAL morale is boosted by this action through the act of role-playing. If there is a system at forces a certain emotional state on my character... I am now prevented from projecting my own emotions (real or pretend) onto the character.

 

These kinds of suggestions take an important element away from the game, turning into a system that needs to be followed instead of a world to jump in to.

Edited April 11, 2015 by WolfgangErikson

[TheScruffyBandit 382]

God I home they NEVER implement anything like this.

[sachad 1016]

No, please. The consequences of your actions, be they 'good' or 'evil', should never be set in stone.

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

I can promise you that it would.

I'd have zero problems with shooting anyone in the face to keep my offspring fed.

And this is what it comes down to.

I might not kill someone to eat I can wait till I get desperate, but my son will not starve I promise you that.

I'm sure anyone that loves their family feels the same way. Your life means absolutely nothing when it comes to what's mine.

Unlike dayz I don't need to server hop to get gear either. I'm prepping now.

Not to forget to add in.

Criminals, they're going to continue doing their thing. They do it now they'll do it even more when no laws are being enforced.

People with grudges. Yup, got some stuff that needs cleared up myself.

I can go on and on but these two up above pretty much sum it up.

 

He would feed your offsprings to his offspings so he could raise his offsprings with offsprings...

But hey,i guess that's the true meaning of family folks!

Edited April 11, 2015 by Damnyourdeadman

[ASTINvlogs 44]

He would feed your offsprings to his offspings so he could raise his offsprings with offsprings...

But hey,i guess that's the true meaning of family folks!

Hmmm, no I wouldn't feed my offspring to his offspring but I would feed his offspring to mine under the cover of " beef " or " deer "

Well, that's kinda fucked lol probably wouldn't actually do that.

Edited April 11, 2015 by ASTINvlogs

[Syphonz 64]

If your opposed to the idea, fine, but there is NO need to be rude and condescending to the original poster people.

[Tenebrae 1]

Great idea,

The negative outcome of not maintaining your mental health could be insanity, where you start hearing voices and, maybe, seeing moving shadows within your peripheral vision. This wouldn't be too big of a detriment to lone wolves, but it would screw with the player and cause a bit of increased paranoia that would, ultimately, be the real detriment within the system. I can easily see lone wolves being on edge if they're occasionally hearing pseudo footsteps behind them and seeing things dashing around within the corner of their vision.

This places them at a disadvantage...but not one that they couldn't overcome, which I think makes for a great concept.

[sixfeetgiantbunnyrabbit 40]

It would be fun to play a game where your sanity is some sort of ressource just like energy, health and whatnot. Just imagening having a player in your group who is the "did you hear that?"- guy or the "dude, i tell you there was an armed man in the building" - guy who sincerly beliebtes what he saw or heard because, well he saw/heard it. But maybe dayz isn't the game for this mechanic. I'd love to experience that in whatever game it is, be it dayz or some other (survival oriented) game.

[Tenebrae 1]

It would be fun to play a game where your sanity is some sort of ressource just like energy, health and whatnot. Just imagening having a player in your group who is the "did you hear that?"- guy or the "dude, i tell you there was an armed man in the building" - guy who sincerly beliebtes what he saw or heard because, well he saw/heard it. But maybe dayz isn't the game for this mechanic. I'd love to experience that in whatever game it is, be it dayz or some other (survival oriented) game.

 

It could be less of a hassle if it took a while to develop the more extreme level of insanity, unless you feed on human flesh. Feeding on human flesh could cause you to become insane much faster, or have a chance of doing so.

[AP_Norris 1017]

I would like it if this sort of stuff be implemented in as a soft skill, after a while the character will become seemingly immune to any mental affects of killing, gore, and roughing it.

 

In the early game it will make the character feel real, and human to immerse oneself in the game. 

Remind us all that this isn't a world where one can run around care free.

 

But after a while, not too long you become a cold bastard who can kill in self defense or even just for fun without any negative effects. 

 

Every character will also feel new from your last, even if their appearance is the same it is not as though you dropper your gear and ran to the coast.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Nope.  The game should not dictate if your character should feel bad about killing someone

[tcervinsky 0]

An idea popped into my head yesterday and I knew I needed to think about it for a day and do a quick search before I willy-nilly posted the suggestion.  I know it's going to sound stupid to many who play DayZ, and it's probably only coming from my poor experiences within the game that has brought it to my mind. When I found this thread and read this:

 

i think everyone would be able to kill to protect their loved ones, but it all depends on how far you are willing to go.

Would you rob someone to get food for your family? would you kill someone who might be a threat in the future? would you kill children or old people because they might have something on them worth taking? if you can really be that ruthless your survival chances would definitly increase. but what would you become?

 

ASTINvlogs answered with:

 

Yes
Yes
Yes
Alive.

 

The last response should have read "A robot." because that's all you you'll ever be.  Many responses that say they don't want morals in the game probably don't have morals IRL either. 

 

Anyways.... one of the things that bugs me the most is kids playing the game.  Even though the graphics are very lack luster regarding the death of people, I believe the game should carry a "M-Mature" rating.  There should have to be a very strict age verification process. 

So here comes this really wacked out suggestion.  Imagine if, as a survivor in this world of DayZ, you had to care for a child.  I think I saw a reference to something like this in "This War of Mine", but I don't play that game so I don't know how or if it's implemented.  Maybe if they're going to let underaged kids play the game they would need to play as a child.  Their aim would suck, they wouldn't have enough force to throw a damaging punch, or chop down a tree, or carry a very heavy backpack.  That would probably drive a lot of kids away (I think a good thing).  Or maybe the other dynamic would be every player would be required to protect a child. They would spawn with the child, need to feed and clothe him and so on. This might lead to players being much more careful not to KOS as they run the risk of their child dying in a gun fight.  And if their child dies or they kill a child, then within a few minutes of game play the player automatically commits suicide.  If the gaurdian is killed then the child would start to follow the person who did the killing (now you have two or more kids to take care of). Or, maybe if the child witnesses their gaurdian kill often enough they would eventually kill their gaurdian because they think it's okay to kill. I know, I know, it's kind of stupid.  And probably extremly difficult to impliment.  It would have to wait until computer technology became much more advanced.  I think it would make it much more challenging, damn kids would always be trying to play with the Zeds. 

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Anyways.... one of the things that bugs me the most is kids playing the game.  Even though the graphics are very lack luster regarding the death of people, I believe the game should carry a "M-Mature" rating.  There should have to be a very strict age verification process. 

So here comes this really wacked out suggestion.  Imagine if, as a survivor in this world of DayZ, you had to care for a child.  I think I saw a reference to something like this in "This War of Mine", but I don't play that game so I don't know how or if it's implemented.  Maybe if they're going to let underaged kids play the game they would need to play as a child.  Their aim would suck, they wouldn't have enough force to throw a damaging punch, or chop down a tree, or carry a very heavy backpack.  That would probably drive a lot of kids away (I think a good thing).  Or maybe the other dynamic would be every player would be required to protect a child. They would spawn with the child, need to feed and clothe him and so on. This might lead to players being much more careful not to KOS as they run the risk of their child dying in a gun fight.  And if their child dies or they kill a child, then within a few minutes of game play the player automatically commits suicide.  If the gaurdian is killed then the child would start to follow the person who did the killing (now you have two or more kids to take care of). Or, maybe if the child witnesses their gaurdian kill often enough they would eventually kill their gaurdian because they think it's okay to kill. I know, I know, it's kind of stupid.  And probably extremly difficult to impliment.  It would have to wait until computer technology became much more advanced.  I think it would make it much more challenging, damn kids would always be trying to play with the Zeds. 

'underaged kids' is an oxymoron :P The most they could do to "verify" that children were playing is to include some DoB system and as has been seen they never make any difference. And if some person just quickly clicked through the age verification system, would they then not be allowed to change their character? It's a semi-interesting idea to allow people to play as children, but it'd most certainly have to be 100% optional.

 

Also, what the fuck? No. What kind of "sandbox" would DayZ become if you were forced to protect some incompetent AI character? I don't think anyone would want to play a game where that was forced upon them, especially if it meant they were guaranteed to die if they made any choices at all (with the amount of glitch deaths that happen to players in DayZ, imagine what it'd be like with AI)

[tcervinsky 0]

'underaged kids' is an oxymoron :P The most they could do to "verify" that children were playing is to include some DoB system and as has been seen they never make any difference. And if some person just quickly clicked through the age verification system, would they then not be allowed to change their character? It's a semi-interesting idea to allow people to play as children, but it'd most certainly have to be 100% optional.

 

Also, what the fuck? No. What kind of "sandbox" would DayZ become if you were forced to protect some incompetent AI character? I don't think anyone would want to play a game where that was forced upon them, especially if it meant they were guaranteed to die if they made any choices at all (with the amount of glitch deaths that happen to players in DayZ, imagine what it'd be like with AI)

Age verification works (most of the time) with porn. 

 

As for thinking DayZ is a sandbox, it's hardly that.  As I see and experience it the only goal is to kill everyone else.  You can go play COD or BF and do that all day long.  Adding something that you have to take care of would be the challenge.  It would begin to give you a sense of moral without a "moral gauge".  And this is where some people differ.  I like a challenge (a lot of people who play games do).  I like problem solving.  Being toted as a survival simulator the game should having a challenge other than kill or be killed.  Again, there are hundreds of other games that accomplish that.

 

  I imagin the AI for the child would have to keep it from doing the stupid things, like walking off the edge of something, or jumping in the water (unless you jumped first).  The mechanics would have to allow a player to order the child to stay in a spot, or tent, or vehicle, while you looted or did some other dangerous thing. 

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

 

Age verification as it stands is a joke.

 

Its unenforceable over the net for anyone moderately PC savy and that includes almost all ages.

 

Rdgs

 

LoK

[BCBasher 2465]

Age verification works (most of the time) with porn. 

 

As for thinking DayZ is a sandbox, it's hardly that.  As I see and experience it the only goal is to kill everyone else.  You can go play COD or BF and do that all day long.  Adding something that you have to take care of would be the challenge.  It would begin to give you a sense of moral without a "moral gauge".  And this is where some people differ.  I like a challenge (a lot of people who play games do).  I like problem solving.  Being toted as a survival simulator the game should having a challenge other than kill or be killed.  Again, there are hundreds of other games that accomplish that.

 

  I imagin the AI for the child would have to keep it from doing the stupid things, like walking off the edge of something, or jumping in the water (unless you jumped first).  The mechanics would have to allow a player to order the child to stay in a spot, or tent, or vehicle, while you looted or did some other dangerous thing. 

I have 2 accounts and occasionally play with my 10  year olds and yes that's a fun and challenging mini game in itself. When they're focused though they are productive and can do things like loot a house while I wait outside with a better view of approaching threats. My 15 year old son is actually really good, organized, observant, methodical, and most important he doesn't argue or have "better ideas" so we just split tasks and communicate.

 

If they were to have AI children which I doubt, ordering ones under say 12 or under to do something should have at least a 25% chance of them just doing something else because... kids.

 

I doubt the developers will force moral perks on us but really the dog eat dog mentality is not sustainable and would fade as bad apples died or were killed off. Mankind are all descended from lawless savages and chose to civilize, the "end of the world" as we, they, whatever knew it has happened several times in recorded history and those with a moral foundation and a sense of humanity have always eventually come out on top.  

[liquidcactus 719]

Ahh the morale issue..  

 

Flogging a dead horse all over again... and again.. and again... and   again...     and again..   and   again

 

Personally I dont really have much trouble with KOS or bad players.. I have manipulated my play style to always be on 1 low pop server that is a private hive.. I see where you coming from but shit damn this is suggested alot and as frustrating as it is I really think dayz needs to be left out of the "morale" penalties.. dayz is the only game of its kind and sure it can be a pain in the arse but the key phrase here is One of a kind... 

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Age verification works (most of the time) with porn. 

 

As for thinking DayZ is a sandbox, it's hardly that.  As I see and experience it the only goal is to kill everyone else.  You can go play COD or BF and do that all day long.  Adding something that you have to take care of would be the challenge.  It would begin to give you a sense of moral without a "moral gauge".  And this is where some people differ.  I like a challenge (a lot of people who play games do).  I like problem solving.  Being toted as a survival simulator the game should having a challenge other than kill or be killed.  Again, there are hundreds of other games that accomplish that.

 

  I imagin the AI for the child would have to keep it from doing the stupid things, like walking off the edge of something, or jumping in the water (unless you jumped first).  The mechanics would have to allow a player to order the child to stay in a spot, or tent, or vehicle, while you looted or did some other dangerous thing. 

Maybe for certain individuals, but really; anyone who's actually looking for it won't be stopped by such a screen. It only really helps for those who accidentally stumble upon it, and it's far more likely for kids to happen upon random websites on the internet then it is for them to accidentally pay $35 for a Steam game (and keep in mind, it actually does have age verification.) Regardless, there are going to be kids playing the game, no matter what you do.

 

You might only experience the constant deathmatch and KoS side of DayZ, but that doesn't make it any less of a sandbox. Even if "everyone" makes the same choice, they're still choosing. (It's not nearly everyone anyway - I've had plenty of nonviolent, interesting encounters with people.) The big difference between DayZ and regular shooters is that you actually have to work (though right now it's really just spending time, eventually it will be difficult) to become well equipped and being killed actually has consequences. In Call of Duty and Battlefield you're handed all of your stuff, you have instant respawn, and action is constant and instantaneous. Granted, I agree that spending your entire time playing DayZ just to deathmatch in clan battles is a waste, but it's not the same as other games.

 

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of taking care of something that's supposed to guide you morally; my problem comes with making it mandatory, especially the way you suggested it, where you are absolutely forced to protect this child every time you play - if they die or you kill them, you automatically die / if you kill another person, their kid attacks you, and if you kill their kid, their kid kills you, and if you defend yourself, you kill yourself later. It's forcing a complete PvE gameplay style on everybody all the time, and to most people it'd just be a liability rather than something they cared about.

 

The idea of having dogs, horses, and other tameable creatures has been discussed and is part of the future plans as far as I'm aware. Like I said, I'm not against the idea, and I think it'd add another layer of gameplay with tradeoffs, where your dog per say has a keen sense of smell and of course will defend you, but you have to feed and protect it, and it's optional (you have to work to get it, rather than being forced to protect it from the get go.)

 

If it's a survival simulator then the base game should revolve around mechanics of the individual; in a real world scenario plenty of people would go rogue, abandon their sense of morality, and certainly not everybody would be trying to protect kids, even if they were a good person.