Do DayZ and Teamwork mix?

[emuthreat 2837]

I still get what he's saying about trusting strangers met in game though. The two I've given a chance solo recognized I had the upper hand at first and just waited for a weak moment to jack me and then meet up with their real friends.  

That just happened to me a Krasnostav.   I'm too nice, maybe a bit dumb too; 'cause he shot me in the back of the head after picking him up, driving to a well and giving him food.  He could have traded his Longhorn for my AK 101 and made a friend, if he'd only asked.  Some people... already made it bak to my death he stole the truck and left a first aid kit.

[q.S Sachiel 470]

I think there should be some restrictions when playing alone.

We all like the "lone wolf" play style and hate a system enforcing it's rules on us,but there should be more to gameplay.

 

If we leave it as it is,players will be able to build whole villages alone.

Would you really like the game that way?

Everyone is quick to play the realism card but when things go against a certain playstyle,you chicken out.

 

Most of you want a survival game heavily based on realism,you should accept the fact that a base cannot be constructed by a single person.

You also claim to hate grinding,so should construction be like : drag - drop and poof - insta made base,"enjoy" ?

 

Not gonna lie,i'm kinda disappointed,because it feels like everyone subtly avoids discussion about the stuff that really matter...

AFAIK base building is not in game yet.  Are there not alternatives to having a mansion castle ultra super base?  Like having it take longer to build with 1 instead of 10, or deciding to go for speed over security, and slapping together a shack?  I can make a lean-to in about 30seconds if i have a corrugated iron sheet and a tree stump.

 

all this talk STILL ignoring the fact that this is a game, and there must be compromise between game play and 'simulator' elements, as was discussed back donkeys years ago when they had the whole 'authenticity over realism' talk.

 

I'd also caution you on pigeonholing the entire DayZ community or making sweeping statements about a particular group, and then drawing conclusions from your inductive reasoning, or if you do try not to get upset when people don't share similar views or fail to conform to your strictures.

 

to elaborate: Wall of text to follow:

certain people and groups seem to keep pushing the tired barrow of 'you would die' 'this is not realistic' 'group up or perish', essentially supporting their own agendas and concept of what this is.  There is very little that three can do that one cannot, albeit slower or with less competence.  Seeing as you need at least one person to be in the server to validate the game, I'd take the lone wolf game play as the benchmark and build upon that, rather than -as what some would have- slap restrictions and tape all over this entirely valid style, and focus on group/co-operative bonuses and such.

 

DayZ seems to be semi-organic, and from what i've heard and read from Dean back when he had a greater role, it seems his original vision was that of a more organic (read sandbox) game.  Some people want classes and quests and linear hallways through which they would like their experience directed, but from what I've played since alpha release, as well as the information released regarding planning and vision, there doesn't seem to be too much in the way of domineering game play restrictions. 

 

I like this in DayZ.  It's organic.  It flows.  There's nothing forcing me to group together with a 7 year old kid, or else waste the next two hours on a slow death.  Everything expected and required of me falls at my own two feet.

 

So rather than point the finger and demand change within the player base, why not expect and request game play mechanics which are more conducive to encouraging rather than enforcing a co-operative experience, whereby the italicized word suggests a presence of reward and absence of punishment for such co-operation?

 

Ultimately I find it ironic that the people who demand realism in a survival simulator are the most vocal in requiring a strict and structured approach to gameplay.  Though i'm sure ther are a litany of things out there that will get you killed quick and dumb, survival of the individual and further, the flourishing of a group/community/civilization is built firmly on the foundation of ingenuity and imagination.  If you want to limit your game play possibilities go ahead, but I'll still be sitting in a bush somewhere with a shiv and come running at you naked solely for the purpose of being able to do whatever I want in the semi/sandbox game that I purchased.

 

Edited May 8, 2015 by q.S Sachiel

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

When I want to play DayZ as a survivor, I use in game voice.  When I want to pretend to be special forces, I'll use team speak....  

[Surviv0r1969 151]

I still get what he's saying about trusting strangers met in game though. 

 

trusting them strangers has made me some good gaming friends.... whats the worse that can happen...you die? wow that never happens in this game

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

AFAIK base building is not in game yet.  Are there not alternatives to having a mansion castle ultra super base?  Like having it take longer to build with 1 instead of 10, or deciding to go for speed over security, and slapping together a shack?  I can make a lean-to in about 30seconds if i have a corrugated iron sheet and a tree stump.

 

all this talk STILL ignoring the fact that this is a game, and there must be compromise between game play and 'simulator' elements, as was discussed back donkeys years ago when they had the whole 'authenticity over realism' talk.

 

I'd also caution you on pigeonholing the entire DayZ community or making sweeping statements about a particular group, and then drawing conclusions from your inductive reasoning, or if you do try not to get upset when people don't share similar views or fail to conform to your strictures.

 

I'm not upset about people sharing other opinions.

I don't wish DayZ becoming an arcade shooter(h1z1)and believe that hardcore survival is the key element for this game,i stick to my guns 100%.

Many share my reasoning but when the time comes to advocate on the negetive side of realism,they conviniently forget their agendas.

Survival is hard alone,there are plenty of ways to promote teamwork elements while not taking away from the simulation elements.

 

 

certain people and groups seem to keep pushing the tired barrow of 'you would die' 'this is not realistic' 'group up or perish', essentially supporting their own agendas and concept of what this is.  There is very little that three can do that one cannot, albeit slower or with less competence.  Seeing as you need at least one person to be in the server to validate the game, I'd take the lone wolf game play as the benchmark and build upon that, rather than -as what some would have- slap restrictions and tape all over this entirely valid style, and focus on group/co-operative bonuses and such.

 

DayZ seems to be semi-organic, and from what i've heard and read from Dean back when he had a greater role, it seems his original vision was that of a more organic (read sandbox) game.  Some people want classes and quests and linear hallways through which they would like their experience directed, but from what I've played since alpha release, as well as the information released regarding planning and vision, there doesn't seem to be too much in the way of domineering game play restrictions. 

 

I like this in DayZ.  It's organic.  It flows.  There's nothing forcing me to group together with a 7 year old kid, or else waste the next two hours on a slow death.  Everything expected and required of me falls at my own two feet.

 

So rather than point the finger and demand change within the player base, why not expect and request game play mechanics which are more conducive to encouraging rather than enforcing a co-operative experience, whereby the italicized word suggests a presence of reward and absence of punishment for such co-operation?

 

Ultimately I find it ironic that the people who demand realism in a survival simulator are the most vocal in requiring a strict and structured approach to gameplay.  Though i'm sure ther are a litany of things out there that will get you killed quick and dumb, survival of the individual and further, the flourishing of a group/community/civilization is built firmly on the foundation of ingenuity and imagination.  If you want to limit your game play possibilities go ahead, but I'll still be sitting in a bush somewhere with a shiv and come running at you naked solely for the purpose of being able to do whatever I want in the semi/sandbox game that I purchased.

 

This is what i wanted to see from people. :)

Formulating their opinion the same way you did,straight and to the point.

 

Well,what i personally want to see,is a survival,sandbox experience.

However the direction is surrently towards a slow paced team deathmatch.

Now,i don't know if that changes as development progresses,but i believe it would be a step in the right direction promoting teamwork gameplay elements.

In my understanding,placing teamwork mechanics(radios,bllodbags,etc) without making them "gameplay viable" isn't gonna help.

[Nicko2580 398]

-snip-

I think your classifications are wrong. 

I am a PvPer. That's why I play DayZ. But I am also all about survival. Survival means I kill where I have to and sometimes even where I don't have to. 

However, I am not interested in surviving against a computer. If I were, I'd be playing one of the inumerable PvE survival games out there/. I am here to survive against you guys.  I am here to be that lone wolf with a 500 hour old character that no one has managed to kill yet and that has a belt full of notches from all the players I've killed. 

Just because I play DayZ for the PvP it doesn't mean that I want to 'restrict anything that diminishes KOS'. That's the opposite of what I want. I don't want to see constant KOS (and I don't KOS at every opportunity). But I do want KOS to still exist. It's a big and important part of what makes this game so great.

All that being said, I think DayZ and teamwork do mix very, very well even with just random players. I've had some great experiences teaming up with people I've met in game. Once trust is built, you're good to go. If you can get on with actual friends who you trust, even better. Fundamentally I am a lone wolf, but where circumstances allow I'm not at all opposed  to running the map with you and helping us both survive. :)

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

I think your classifications are wrong. 

I am a PvPer. That's why I play DayZ. But I am also all about survival. Survival means I kill where I have to and sometimes even where I don't have to.

 

However, I am not interested in surviving against a computer.

 

Is survival about avoiding death against other players?

Because by these standards GTA V and other shooters can be classified as survival games.

 

Survival is the procudure of keeping yourself functioning

When i think survival,guns is the last thing that comes to mind.

 

 

Just because I play DayZ for the PvP it doesn't mean that I want to 'restrict anything that diminishes KOS'. That's the opposite of what I want. I don't want to see constant KOS (and I don't KOS at every opportunity). But I do want KOS to still exist. It's a big and important part of what makes this game so great.

All that being said, I think DayZ and teamwork do mix very, very well even with just random players. I've had some great experiences teaming up with people I've met in game. Once trust is built, you're good to go. If you can get on with actual friends who you trust, even better. Fundamentally I am a lone wolf, but where circumstances allow I'm not at all opposed  to running the map with you and helping us both survive. :)

 

DayZ and teamwork mix well,but only in a firefight scenario.

Although i strongly believe that a survival title should be more than that.

 

I think DayZ's number 1 problem is that it's lacking gameplay mechanics.

So enforcing and encouraging a more teamwork aproach would certainly benefit the game.

Players that are more PVE oriented are currently suffering and player interaction is admitedly preety bad.

 

Is someone wrong for playing DayZ as deer hunting simulation only with people?

No.

But,there should be more value and gravity to a human's life.

[Nicko2580 398]

But,there should be more value and gravity to a human's life.

In the apocalypse there's only one value to a human's life, and that's the value of your own. Guns are not the first thing on my list either, but they're certainly not the last. Because if you don't protect yourself, the next unscrupulous person who comes along will take everything you have, including your life. 

No matter how hard the devs try, there will be people who play DayZ for the sole purpose of ruining another players day by killing them on sight. You'll never rid the game of it. Enforcing artificial systems to discourage it will destroy the most enjoyable and unique parts of this game. Enforcing artificial systems to prevent the lone wolf play style will make this game another generic zombie game. 

State of DayZ is not what I signed up for.

[BCBasher 2465]

In the apocalypse there's only one value to a human's life, and that's the value of your own. Guns are not the first thing on my list either, but they're certainly not the last. Because if you don't protect yourself, the next unscrupulous person who comes along will take everything you have, including your life. 

No matter how hard the devs try, there will be people who play DayZ for the sole purpose of ruining another players day by killing them on sight. You'll never rid the game of it. Enforcing artificial systems to discourage it will destroy the most enjoyable and unique parts of this game. Enforcing artificial systems to prevent the lone wolf play style will make this game another generic zombie game. 

State of DayZ is not what I signed up for.

 

In an Apocalypse if you only value your own life which has an expiry date doesn't civilization end with you then?

 

I have children know my name and ancestral wisdom will live on, I can't see approaching something like the end of world as a king of the hill competition although some would.   

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

In an Apocalypse if you only value your own life which has an expiry date doesn't civilization end with you then?

 

I have children know my name and ancestral wisdom will live on, I can't see approaching something like the end of world as a king of the hill competition although some would.   

 

Neithertheless,that's his personal view and it dosen't make it any less valid. :)

You see,that's the point of this topic,despite our internal disagrements and different opinions,goal is to discuss and expand further upon the player's inner whishlist.

Knowing that a topic of this nature would create controversity,i purposly classified the playerbase and it's opinions into different categories.

 

I did this as a way for people to express themselves freely,without the fear of denouncement.

Despite my own personal opinions,i wish to remain neutral without attacking a certain playstyle.

The feedback is invaluable as it gives a clearer image of the fanbase opinons,about a topic that's very hard to elaborate on...

[agentneo 337]

The major problem with encouraging team work in DAY Z Which incidently has been the games main problem since release, during the MOD, and surprisingly this far into alpha we are still having the same problem

 

• Environment is not challenging enough, not enough zombie AI
• Buggy melee system means zombies aren't really working
• Not enough emphasis on stealth gameplay (gunshots should be almost suicide in most situtations)

Until people feel environment>players then we will continue to have the majority of players in the PVP style you describe.

 

its pretty simple-increase the threat considerably from the zombies and environment....

[Nicko2580 398]

In an Apocalypse if you only value your own life which has an expiry date doesn't civilization end with you then?

 

I have children know my name and ancestral wisdom will live on, I can't see approaching something like the end of world as a king of the hill competition although some would.   

I don't have kids and so I am not able to share your view. But even then, my point still holds true. 

Who looks after them if you're dead? If you don't protect yourself, who protects them? If they're an extension of you, then isn't my point just as valid as if you were by yourself? 

If it comes down to it, wouldn't you prefer you and your kids on that hill?

 

 

• Not enough emphasis on stealth gameplay (gunshots should be almost suicide in most situtations

I don't get why people keep saying this. 

Why should - out in the middle of nowhere, which is the majority of DayZ's map - a gunshot be suicide? Why should it be suicide in any area except the most densely populated cities where you'd expect to find large hordes? 

Sure, occasionally you should find a horde roaming the country side... but seriously... There's never gonna be enough zombies on this map to fulfill what you want there.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Nicko2580

[BCBasher 2465]

My kids range in age from 21-9, even my 12year old daughter is am exe lent marksman. If anything they'd help take care of me.

[Nicko2580 398]

My kids range in age from 21-9, even my 12year old daughter is am exe lent marksman. If anything they'd help take care of me.

My point exactly.

[BCBasher 2465]

My point exactly.

Yes my kids and would be on the top of the hill. Even though we're a blended family we don't have enough genetic diversity to repopulate the planet so I don't see it as beneficial to kill every human who isn't kin.

[BeefBacon 1185]

PvP and KoS is what makes the game interesting. I'd get bored pretty quickly if everyone I met was friendly. Hell, meeting people is exciting because you don't know if they're going to try and kill you. Therein lies the risk. The reward is not guaranteed. 

 

I think teamwork should be encouraged but not necessary. Teamwork makes many tasks easier, but I don't think there should be anything that can only be achieved through teamwork, except perhaps carrying large objects that might require two people. Bloodbagging in particular is something a player should be able to do by themselves. Obviously they'll still need to know blood types and such, but actually using the bloodbag to replenish blood shouldn't require a friend.

 

Base building should also be possible alone but, obviously, more people makes work faster.

[emuthreat 2837]

It still sucks every time you get shot in the back for trying to play cooperatively.  It still never hurts to try, because if everyone decides to be a total asshat about stuff, DayZ would be just like every other shooter.

 

They need to introduce custom poisons and antidotes that only work by the specific batch.  That way, next time I pick up a hitchhiker and give him some food, only to be shot in the head first chance he gets; the note left in my pack will let him know that I was worth more to him alive than dead, because only I know where I hid the antidote.  

 

Without making it gamey and forced, this simple poison test would help keep people honest, or at least have "authentic" consequences for taking a man's charity and returning him a bullet.

[Nicko2580 398]

It still sucks every time you get shot in the back for trying to play cooperatively.  It still never hurts to try, because if everyone decides to be a total asshat about stuff, DayZ would be just like every other shooter.

 

They need to introduce custom poisons and antidotes that only work by the specific batch.  That way, next time I pick up a hitchhiker and give him some food, only to be shot in the head first chance he gets; the note left in my pack will let him know that I was worth more to him alive than dead, because only I know where I hid the antidote.  

 

Without making it gamey and forced, this simple poison test would help keep people honest, or at least have "authentic" consequences for taking a man's charity and returning him a bullet.

Or just make everyone even more suspicious of everyone. 

However with this method... I could create an army of Bambi slaves! 

"Run! Run little bambi's! Raid those towns and bring me back precious loots. Only then will you get the antidote, muahah.. muahahahha... muahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAA!"

[BCBasher 2465]

It still sucks every time you get shot in the back for trying to play cooperatively. It still never hurts to try, because if everyone decides to be a total asshat about stuff, DayZ would be just like every other shooter.

They need to introduce custom poisons and antidotes that only work by the specific batch. That way, next time I pick up a hitchhiker and give him some food, only to be shot in the head first chance he gets; the note left in my pack will let him know that I was worth more to him alive than dead, because only I know where I hid the antidote.

Without making it gamey and forced, this simple poison test would help keep people honest, or at least have "authentic" consequences for taking a man's charity and returning him a bullet.

Really there is consequences, I will not pick up hitch hikers anymore. If I don't know what you're all about outside game junior and I will let you go the opposite way were going and that's it. I'd like to make friends/allies but the log on for an hour and peeveepee crowd are playing the wrong game and think it should change to suit them.

[emuthreat 2837]

Really there is consequences, I will not pick up hitch hikers anymore. If I don't know what you're all about outside game junior and I will let you go the opposite way were going and that's it. I'd like to make friends/allies but the log on for an hour and peeveepee crowd are playing the wrong game and think it should change to suit them.

I'll still try to be nice usually, and suffer the consequences.  It is way more valuable to meet an ally, than the risk of running back to a pile of bags.  Once I get a few stashes up, it becomes of little consequence to get killed by testing  peoples' trustworthiness.  It makes a new opportunity to loot up and set a new stash, or look for trucks in a different area, if I get killed.

 

The poison thing would be helpful as a short-term gurantee of one's word, or death.  Also, poison food can be used as traps, for a more polite style than the shotgun diplomacy.

[BCBasher 2465]

I'll still try to be nice usually, and suffer the consequences.  It is way more valuable to meet an ally, than the risk of running back to a pile of bags.  Once I get a few stashes up, it becomes of little consequence to get killed by testing  peoples' trustworthiness.  It makes a new opportunity to loot up and set a new stash, or look for trucks in a different area, if I get killed.

 

The poison thing would be helpful as a short-term gurantee of one's word, or death.  Also, poison food can be used as traps, for a more polite style than the shotgun diplomacy.

 

Junior and I still try to be nice too.. The FOV the four Walmart TVs were playing on give us more than make up for the benefit of the doubt these DayZ. The A-hole at Balota atc that one punched junior and Porkchop that did it our way will attest to that.   

[q.S Sachiel 470]

I'm not upset about people sharing other opinions.

I don't wish DayZ becoming an arcade shooter(h1z1)and believe that hardcore survival is the key element for this game,i stick to my guns 100%.

Many share my reasoning but when the time comes to advocate on the negetive side of realism,they conviniently forget their agendas.

Survival is hard alone,there are plenty of ways to promote teamwork elements while not taking away from the simulation elements.

 

 

 

This is what i wanted to see from people. :)

Formulating their opinion the same way you did,straight and to the point.

 

Well,what i personally want to see,is a survival,sandbox experience.

However the direction is surrently towards a slow paced team deathmatch.

Now,i don't know if that changes as development progresses,but i believe it would be a step in the right direction promoting teamwork gameplay elements.

In my understanding,placing teamwork mechanics(radios,bllodbags,etc) without making them "gameplay viable" isn't gonna help.

Hey I do understand and accept your opinion, it's probably one of the more reasonable of the ones against my view, but I still feel that you're assuming that most people want a simulator, when I'd assume that most want a game with realistic (or more specifically, authentic) elements.  I'd prefer gameplay over a walking eating and drinking simulator any day, but I do enjoy the ever present, looming threat of death from (x,y,z).

Wanting realism in one aspect and (arguably) more arcade-style / 'gameish' elements in another doesn't make one a hypocrite or a fence-sitter/jumper, it's just how they've formulated their vision of this game-in-progress.

 

But now i'm confident and pleased to see that this truly is what this thread is all about ^_^

[q.S Sachiel 470]

In an Apocalypse if you only value your own life which has an expiry date doesn't civilization end with you then?

 

I have children know my name and ancestral wisdom will live on, I can't see approaching something like the end of world as a king of the hill competition although some would.   

If you can contemplate it happening (as have numerous other, albeit  fictional story creations) then doesn't that mean that you acknowledge the probability (not possibility) of it occuring in said hypothetical, thereby validating his point?

A bunch of reasonable people back in the day thought that arming themselves with nuclear weapons was a surefire way of discouraging others from firing nuclear weapons, essentially analogous to two parties staring down eachothers barrel.  Both know that if one pulls the trigger the other will shoot, but this all assuming rational state of mind.  What happens when the other person hates you that much or cares so little for their own well being, or just wants to see what will happen?

 

moving outside the metaphor; what happens when people hear that strangers are shooting on sight?  Are you going to blindly trust the person?  does that mean you will take measures to defend yourself?  Openly?  Subtlely?  What happens when the other party (innocent or mischevious) is confronted by your open suspicion/defensiveness or comes wise to your ruse/subtlety?  Do you not think that would put them offside? make them defensive and potentially scared or agressive?

 

You can't apply logicical +/- reasonable personal opinion to a situation where the hypothetical party is devoid of logic or reason...  All this being hypothesis of course.

but now we're back onto the what if's and debate of realism.  Still, if people can walk down my street and key my car for giggles i see no impediment to people sitting on a hill and shooting the first person moving they see in an apocalypse.

Edited May 9, 2015 by q.S Sachiel

[boneboys 7988]

browser crash doublepost

remove at will plz mods

You need to Report the post concerned in order to alert the Moderators.

Please do so in future.

[agentneo 337]

I don't have kids and so I am not able to share your view. But even then, my point still holds true. 

Who looks after them if you're dead? If you don't protect yourself, who protects them? If they're an extension of you, then isn't my point just as valid as if you were by yourself? 

If it comes down to it, wouldn't you prefer you and your kids on that hill?

 

 

 

I don't get why people keep saying this. 

Why should - out in the middle of nowhere, which is the majority of DayZ's map - a gunshot be suicide? Why should it be suicide in any area except the most densely populated cities where you'd expect to find large hordes? 

Sure, occasionally you should find a horde roaming the country side... but seriously... There's never gonna be enough zombies on this map to fulfill what you want there.

Yeah obviously firing a fire arm in a town or military base is where i envisage the hordes.

I have made my thoughts clear on this so many times- i think zombies should be house based- so each house/ building has between 2 and 4 zombies they spawn inside the house as people would..have a few wanderers plus hordes out and about- but majority should spawn inside houses and work their way out.

For example a military barrack could have 2 soldier zombies for each room (10-15 total) so when you open a military barrack it should be full of zombies and sh*t you up

Firing a gun in a town or barrack should draw all the zombies out of the buildings

 

the reason i say do it like this is it gives a much more realistic number of zombies- rather than sporadic zombies everywhere, you would have zombies to match the population, and areas with more buildings/barracks would be far more dangerous.,.

 

Out in the forests, i would expect just the odd scattering of zombies, although gun shots could draw zombies in from further afield, i imagine a radar type system where the closer to the shot the more 'interested' the zombies would be, and say within  200m would aggro them full out.

Different stages of aggro might help eg. interested, tracking, aggro'ed, attacking

 

But mainly, i think spawning zombies in houses and especially military buildings would make the game Much more co-operative and survival based.

Currently for the last however long day z Standalone And mod has been a glorified deathmatch

 

Honestly, i can't believe the state of the game currently and rarely bother to put it on. 30fps with new gtx 970 and decent pc is unacceptable, Alpha or  not

Edited May 14, 2015 by AgentNe0