Nametags + Reputation System Proof of concept

[stray cat 5]

The images in the gallery contain the explanations for the system.

https://imgur.com/a/fPXQY

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

The images in the gallery contain the explanations for the system.

https://imgur.com/a/fPXQY

 

Just use the "special bb code" located on your top left (a light blue picture with a green stripe icon) and select the "spoilers" tag.

Then drag and drop the images [*spoiler] Here [*spoiler]

They will show up like this...

 

Edited April 21, 2015 by Damnyourdeadman

[Scarcifer 102]

The images in the gallery contain the explanations for the system.

https://imgur.com/a/fPXQY

Impressive gesture

[DMentMan 707]

i dislike this idea a lot

[liquidcactus 719]

I think with some more time stray cat you may learn why alot of people will not like this idea because it goes against the idea of what dayz is about. Indeed we all know its hard and you get f*cked on alot by other players but I can assure you about 80% of the community wouldn't want this idea due to its "restrictive" nature.. There is a strong ethic among the community about not being punished for your play style.. I agree with this also and the less information we are told by the game the more emphasis there is for the enrichment of player experience via environment.

 

When the game becomes alot harder with more zombies, sickness etc hopefully, I think players will be more inclined to work together. We will see. Untill I will still avoid people always

 

Other than that most of this is done by the players word of mouth in respect to what you mention

Also at the end of the day dayz isnt like the rest and we would prefer it to stay that way :D

Edited April 22, 2015 by liquidcactus

[Evil Minion 943]

While I like this idea much more than an arbitrary karma system I think there are still some issues:

• it might not be as biased towards a very specific moral codex but there is still some bias depending on the majority of players this one met
• knowing the reputation of a random stranger you never met or heard of before is pretty unauthentic
• reputation might be unindicative (or can be abused) depending on the group that gave ratings
• polarizing behavior (e.g. a proud warrior) is ill-represented
• you should not be told who killed you if you cannot deduce it from the events
• nametags might work as identification only if they are fixed and then they might be too exact (e.g. a stranger you never met before cannot lie to you giving you a wrong name*)

So in general much better then a karma system because it's less biased but I think it still gives up way to much prepared information to players. For my part I prefer unprepared information like being able to distinguish characters by their face and more options to communicate this ingame (drawing on paper, pinning persistent papers to walls, taking polaroids, ...). The fact remains that you need to identify players/characters to introduce consequences for their behavior but that doesn't mean you should get this information out of thin air.

 

As last: "the only way". It seems people have forgotten what this actually means and just use it as promotional phrase on their ideas. Please stop! You are implying that your idea would not only work as intended but also that there is absolutely no other way of achieving this. That's most likely wrong. There are plenty of other ideas that might work just fine or even better.

 

*Pretty minor as you could also use your ingame name as some kind of ID basically emulating a persons face.

[sachad 1016]

I'd rather not. If you want to earn a reputation, earn it well and true.

[Tatanko 5591]

The images in the gallery contain the explanations for the system.

https://imgur.com/a/fPXQY

While I don't necessary love the idea, I want to thank you for taking the time to illustrate your point instead of just talking about it. That goes a long way, in my opinion :)

[stray cat 5]

I think with some more time stray cat you may learn why alot of people will not like this idea because it goes against the idea of what dayz is about. Indeed we all know its hard and you get f*cked on alot by other players but I can assure you about 80% of the community wouldn't want this idea due to its "restrictive" nature.. There is a strong ethic among the community about not being punished for your play style.. I agree with this also and the less information we are told by the game the more emphasis there is for the enrichment of player experience via environment.

 

When the game becomes alot harder with more zombies, sickness etc hopefully, I think players will be more inclined to work together. We will see. Untill I will still avoid people always

 

Other than that most of this is done by the players word of mouth in respect to what you mention

Also at the end of the day dayz isnt like the rest and we would prefer it to stay that way :D

 

I think you are completely wrong on all of this:

 

1. The game already restricts gameplay to shoot on sight or regret it.  And the game does exactly that, punishing you for being not hostile to other players. Adding negative consequences to shooting everyone you see is the only way to break this. And what are you talking about ethics? go meet players anywhere inland and the usual greeting is bullets whizzing by.

 

2. Making zombies harder to force working together will not work. I would just wait and shoot the other guys after we take down the zombies and we collected all the loot. Either because I want their stuff or to prevent them doing it.

While I like this idea much more than an arbitrary karma system I think there are still some issues:

• it might not be as biased towards a very specific moral codex but there is still some bias depending on the majority of players this one met
• knowing the reputation of a random stranger you never met or heard of before is pretty unauthentic
• reputation might be unindicative (or can be abused) depending on the group that gave ratings
• polarizing behavior (e.g. a proud warrior) is ill-represented
• you should not be told who killed you if you cannot deduce it from the events
• nametags might work as identification only if they are fixed and then they might be too exact (e.g. a stranger you never met before cannot lie to you giving you a wrong name*)

So in general much better then a karma system because it's less biased but I think it still gives up way to much prepared information to players. For my part I prefer unprepared information like being able to distinguish characters by their face and more options to communicate this ingame (drawing on paper, pinning persistent papers to walls, taking polaroids, ...). The fact remains that you need to identify players/characters to introduce consequences for their behavior but that doesn't mean you should get this information out of thin air.

 

As last: "the only way". It seems people have forgotten what this actually means and just use it as promotional phrase on their ideas. Please stop! You are implying that your idea would not only work as intended but also that there is absolutely no other way of achieving this. That's most likely wrong. There are plenty of other ideas that might work just fine or even better.

 

*Pretty minor as you could also use your ingame name as some kind of ID basically emulating a persons face.

The system I propose has no karma, because karma is an illdefined mess. The system allows for a simple measure that will accurately gauge how dangerous you are to other people by a simple average. And more importantly, how helpful you are. You can all claim waht you want, helping others does not pay off, because they can never tell who you are (no identification). And it is not worth the risk risking all your stuff to help people, because if you help 20 people and number 20 shoots you it will ruin your hours or days of gathering with very little risk for the attacker.

 

Killing on sight carries very little risk and a high reward, while not doing that or even attempting to help people carries all the risks and no reward.

 

And if we compare it to real life as the nametag hating people like to do. In real life you would be able to recognize a face. You would eventually seek out people to be with and you would have some inhibitions to kill on sight because being alone will cause depression and insanity aftwer some time.

 

 

polarizing behavior (e.g. a proud warrior) is ill-represented

There is nothing polarizing about "proud warrior" because you made up a title that has no defined meaning. "proud warrior" is the same as "asshole that shoots on sight" depending on who you ask.

[Zboub le météor 250]

i'm sure your idea will make it's way into a mod.

 

but i personnaly hate this system. randomness in dayz encounter is a huge part in my dayz enjoyment.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Zboub le météor

[OnionOfShame 138]

An interesting idea bit I'm gonna have to disagree. I'm real life you wouldn't magically know if someone else has good intentions. You would only be able to tell by their appearance, which is already in-game. For example endgame players in bright colors or wearing a UN Helmet are not usually looking to kill you in my experience, while players in full camouflage often are.

[BeefBacon 1185]

I think you are completely wrong on all of this:

 

1. The game already restricts gameplay to shoot on sight or regret it.  And the game does exactly that, punishing you for being not hostile to other players. Adding negative consequences to shooting everyone you see is the only way to break this. And what are you talking about ethics? go meet players anywhere inland and the usual greeting is bullets whizzing by.

 

2. Making zombies harder to force working together will not work. I would just wait and shoot the other guys after we take down the zombies and we collected all the loot. Either because I want their stuff or to prevent them doing it.

The system I propose has no karma, because karma is an illdefined mess. The system allows for a simple measure that will accurately gauge how dangerous you are to other people by a simple average. And more importantly, how helpful you are. You can all claim waht you want, helping others does not pay off, because they can never tell who you are (no identification). And it is not worth the risk risking all your stuff to help people, because if you help 20 people and number 20 shoots you it will ruin your hours or days of gathering with very little risk for the attacker.

 

Killing on sight carries very little risk and a high reward, while not doing that or even attempting to help people carries all the risks and no reward.

 

And if we compare it to real life as the nametag hating people like to do. In real life you would be able to recognize a face. You would eventually seek out people to be with and you would have some inhibitions to kill on sight because being alone will cause depression and insanity aftwer some time.

 

There is nothing polarizing about "proud warrior" because you made up a title that has no defined meaning. "proud warrior" is the same as "asshole that shoots on sight" depending on who you ask.

 

Some of my best DayZ experiences have been where I didn't shoot on sight and ended up running with some random guy or being held up by a couple of friendly players who just want to trade.

 

If only we could look at the face of the Governor and have 'bandit' pop up. Would have made the Walking Dead a whole lot more boring, though.

 

I've seen a lot of 'morality' systems and 'hero/bandit' nonsense. They're all awful. I'll grant that yours is exceptionally well presented, but it's just as flawed as the rest, for reasons already outlined.

 

Also what's to stop a player being friendly and getting a bunch of 'friendly' ratings from just shooting once people trust them? And what's to stop a clan or group of friends rating one another?

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

A million times this topic has been brought up and a million times it has been shot down.

[tomtrustworthy 35]

This won't happen officially. 

 

Just wait for modding to happen. 

[sgtpotatoes@gmail.com 30]

1. The game already restricts gameplay to shoot on sight or regret it. And the game does exactly that, punishing you for being not hostile to other players.

The game doesn't punish you for not killing everyone on sight. People do. DZ is the *least* restrictive game when it comes to player behavior.

It sounds to me like you need to step up your control game and keep your head down.

[liquidcactus 719]

I think you are completely wrong on all of this:

 

1. The game already restricts gameplay to shoot on sight or regret it.  And the game does exactly that, punishing you for being not hostile to other players. Adding negative consequences to shooting everyone you see is the only way to break this. And what are you talking about ethics? go meet players anywhere inland and the usual greeting is bullets whizzing by.

 

Restricted ? Its not restricted... A  karma/information system is more restricting... 

 

This topic has been brought up so many damn times and its always received badly. People dont wont this information/karma idea... I have 300 hrs in the standalone(400 hrs in mod) and personally I dont get KOS much due to avoiding everyone and being super careful... More people need to play in a group also... as much as KOS sucks ideas like this idea SUCK EVEN MORE  Seriously, I am a firm believer that it just cant be restricted like this.. No offence, but with your 5 posts I'm guessing you may still have alot to learn about this game..  Your player info system is already in place.. I use it... its called "word of mouth" among players. A huge thing that works for me is always saying something through my mic first like when you see someone "HEY, HEY PEACE, IM FRIENDLY" I'm usually always the one to make first vocal contact and people are generally always friendly, I have noticed not many people I encounter make first vocal contact because they are probably shit scared, therefore most idiots shoot first. However, I play on a Private hive you see.. private hives seem to have waaaaay less dickheads on them.. 

 

2. Making zombies harder to force working together will not work. I would just wait and shoot the other guys after we take down the zombies and we collected all the loot. Either because I want their stuff or to prevent them doing it.

The system I propose has no karma, because karma is an illdefined mess. The system allows for a simple measure that will accurately gauge how dangerous you are to other people by a simple average. And more importantly, how helpful you are. You can all claim waht you want, helping others does not pay off, because they can never tell who you are (no identification). And it is not worth the risk risking all your stuff to help people, because if you help 20 people and number 20 shoots you it will ruin your hours or days of gathering with very little risk for the attacker.

 

 

 

Unless you can see into the future I think we should wait and see..but when the zombies  are actually a situation.. the way people play will change somewhat.

 

The thing is stray cat..I dont want to sound pompous but I have been gaming for about 25 years now.. Everything I play is the same everywhere all the time.. except for dayz.. its different, its hard, its rewarding and its a pain in the arse. I totally see where you are coming from with your idea but at the end of the day these 1000's of game restricting ideas like this one posted on the forums here need to be left out of dayz.. Its only 1 game out of 10,000's of others so lets not nerf it and how about you check out H1Z1 ?? :P

Edited April 24, 2015 by liquidcactus

[liquidcactus 719]

I'd rather not. If you want to earn a reputation, earn it well and true.

Exactly.. word of mouth among players on the server.. Thats whats so good about private hives.. you can run into the same players and exchange info on anything thats recently happened

[liquidcactus 719]

It sounds to me like you need to step up your control game and keep your head down.

So much Yep to this comment ^^^ It's pretty much the only way.. its just a shame so many pussies are to scared to talk through their mic.. I always make the first attempt to chat to people and usually they always talk back and everything works out fine.. 

[Spesago 13]

My opinion is dayz needs to take some lessons from EVE online.

 

Reward should match the Risk.

 

KoS has no risk, high reward

where as not killing has High Risk and Low to no reward.

 

for people arguing realism

 

1) although people will do a lot of things in desperate times it is still not the norm to feel nothing about killing someone that is not a threat

2) When meeting someone while they can lie about their identity you will still recognize them if you saw them again.

 

For this reason there should be negatives to needless killing otherwise you may as well tell they guy that spent ages coding all gestures and taking prisoners code and animatons that they have wasted their time.

 

Leaving someone to die, not a huge problem for most people

Killing someone with a gun pointed at them or running at them with a melee weapon again not an issue.

 

Killing people because its fun is the realm of the sociopath and while they will be more common than they used to be they wouldnt be the majority.

 

So the options are:

a) Use a morality system to restrict PVPers (not a great option but could be a server option and or carefully coded)

b) Use some kind of identification system so that players actions will carry some kind of concequences (ie dont trust RickGrimes9983 he pretends to be friendly then steals your beans)

c) Give some kind of reward to social interaction, after all it is needed to keep one sane (Good idea in principle but then hinders solo play and can easily be avoided by group PVPers)

d) Do nothing

(This then hinders any non PVP players leading to the PVP dominated servers i see all over.

yes DayZ is about freedom but there becomes a level of freedom where you are removing freedoms from others.

 

For example tobacco. people argue they should have the freedom to smoke where they want as it is their body and their choice.

but a non smoker who has to share the same space as them is then forced to breath that smoke thus removing their freedom to

choose not to smoke. so if the developers dont have concequences to killing players they are in effect making concequences to

not killing players 

 

Freedom to play whatever playstyle you want doesnt mean freedom from concequence. for example if there is a karma system for player killing it doesnt stop them from engaging in that activity if they want but it does mean they reap the concequences of their decision to do so.)

 

Ultimately i think having a key for "introduce" that adds a name you give as your nametag to anyone in close proximity that is looking at you, combined with players able to rename the name they are given on their screen would be better.

 

So RickGrimes9983 meets Judith O'Dea outside Cherno

 

RickGrimes9983 claims to be Duane Jones and presses their "introduce" key and enters that name

 

Judith O'Dea knows Duane Jones and knows it isnt them so changes the name they see to "liar Jones"

 

Then as long as neither one dies Judith will see that player as "liar Jones"

 

This means identity is persistent but name is not. additionally there is a max distance to how far a person can recognise another using their face. have the nametags only show up to that distance and only as long as the face has been seen within 10 seconds and it will help with keeping track of who the person is not neccesarily their true identity

 

 

Sorry for the long post, but i ran out of potatoes

[therandomredstone 432]

This game is a simulator.

 

This game is supposed to "simulate" what you would have to do during a real zombie apocalypse.

 

 

If in a real zombie apocalypse, you can look at another survivor and read their nametag to see if they are friendly and grow potatoes, then I'm all for this idea.

 

 

 

 

Cheers.

Edited April 25, 2015 by therandomredstone

[Spesago 13]

This game is a simulator.

 

This game is supposed to "simulate" what you would have to do during a real zombie apocalypse.

 

 

If in a real zombie apocalypse, you can look at another survivor and read their nametag to see if they are friendly and grow potatoes, then I'm all for this idea.

 

That's what I thought.

 

 

 

Cheers.

In a way you can, you look at someone right in the eyes and judge whether you see the man staring back at you.. or the beast.

as i mentioned most humans are unwilling to kill other humans. even when pushed. those that can often need justification ie he was coming right at me. it was self defence.

 

if you want to argue the "simulator" point then untill the graphics are good enough that everyones face is unique and identifiable then nametags in some form are needed to make up the shortfall yes people should be able to lie about their name but unless their face is covered you should still recognize them if you see them again.

[therandomredstone 432]

In a way you can, you look at someone right in the eyes and judge whether you see the man staring back at you.. or the beast.

as i mentioned most humans are unwilling to kill other humans. even when pushed. those that can often need justification ie he was coming right at me. it was self defence.

 

if you want to argue the "simulator" point then untill the graphics are good enough that everyones face is unique and identifiable then nametags in some form are needed to make up the shortfall yes people should be able to lie about their name but unless their face is covered you should still recognize them if you see them again.

Most humans won't kill another human, you're right. But this is a loong time after the initial outbreak. All of those "humans" you speak of are gone. It's survival of the fittest. Only the best remain. and the "best" won't hesitate to put a bullet in your head. That's my philosophy. And there are certain things that a simulator won't ever be able to simulate. And that may very well be "who they are from their eyes". There will be no way to tell the type of player from a feature like that for a loong time, if not never. And adding what you want to add might be useful in some cases, but it would ruin the "simulation" part. AND imagine finding another player bleeding out, choosing whether or not to help this person can be a hard decision. But a big bright nametag that says "tommy. I am a bandit." or "Tommy. I KoS" will influence your decision a lot, without having to guess what type of person it is, which is the beauty of it.

 

 

It would break the game.  

Edited April 25, 2015 by therandomredstone

[sachad 1016]

In a way you can, you look at someone right in the eyes and judge whether you see the man staring back at you.. or the beast.

as i mentioned most humans are unwilling to kill other humans. even when pushed. those that can often need justification ie he was coming right at me. it was self defence.

 

if you want to argue the "simulator" point then untill the graphics are good enough that everyones face is unique and identifiable then nametags in some form are needed to make up the shortfall yes people should be able to lie about their name but unless their face is covered you should still recognize them if you see them again.

 

When's the last time you saw someone in DayZ who wasn't wearing some kind of face cover? 90% of people I meet are masked these days. 

 

And reading someone really isn't as easy as it sounds. You cannot judge a person at first glance, not in the real world, not in DayZ. Some of the world's worst mass murderers were the friendly neighbor type, literally. 

[TechNin9 13]

Sorry mate but I don't like this idea. It would make Dayz like L2 or WoW.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

In a way you can, you look at someone right in the eyes and judge whether you see the man staring back at you.. or the beast.

as i mentioned most humans are unwilling to kill other humans. even when pushed. those that can often need justification ie he was coming right at me. it was self defence.

 

if you want to argue the "simulator" point then untill the graphics are good enough that everyones face is unique and identifiable then nametags in some form are needed to make up the shortfall yes people should be able to lie about their name but unless their face is covered you should still recognize them if you see them again.

DayZ isn't a simulator despite what the other guy is saying, but even if you can sometimes tell things about people by 'reading' them, you certainly cannot just look at some random guy you find around and know that he's a friendly, defensive, potato farmer.

 

Yes, there are shortfalls in the fact that the developers can't make 7 billion unique faces for each character but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to see everyone you've encountered before's name just because you have. It's up to you to remember, not the game to tell you.