Multi-Person Mechanics to discourage KOS

[FlimFlamm 509]

Remember the idea is not to limit the ability of players to play how they want to, but instead to incentivize them to cooperate at various points in the game.

 

Sure, if you have a friend you won't need a stranger to shake an apple tree to get lots of apples quickly, and sure, if you get a stranger to help you remove a barricade maybe you will still kill him to get all the loot for yourself.

 

The main purpose that motivated me to create this thread was hearing and reading about all the coastal KoSing that is happening. If you give players an incentive to work together on the coast (as real life would do) rather than an incentive to kill and eat each other, then we would definitely, definitely, see "spontaneous player interaction" on the coast.

 

Most people KoS out of fear and safety reasons (or at least they say that is why), so mainland players will be hard to discourage from killing everyone they see because they have so much to lose, all the coast needs to foster interaction is a reward for cooperation that is better than a few human steaks.

 

I think penalizing players for KoSing somehow is a dangerous path. We can simply incentivize cooperation instead of penalizing KoSers.

Edited June 13, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[capt. beefsteak 95]

These are my thoughts.

 

1. There should be no penalty for people who want to play alone. Co-op instances can exist, but only for things that don't break the game for solo players. There are those who work and can't play at peak hours who should not be hindered, or discouraged from the game.

 

What I'm getting at here is groups don't always approach you nicely either, meaning, though they play co-op per say, they already have a group and don't mind killing some random guy for kicks.

 

I have taken a peak at the roadmap from time to time guys and have to say of those things the single most thing that will hinder kos that I've seen so far is the life-span feature. People are going to want to live but during the life span there should be things that happen to your player like beards and using a nice sharp knife to shave... Basically put, when someone has something to look forward to from living, then you have less people trying to murder you all the time.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Deepfryer

[vfxtodd 125]

This is probably the best thread I've ever read. Really great ideas. I hope most of them are implemented.

1. Two people shaking tree to bring down apples. (Not silly, because it rewards cooperation. Great idea.)

2. Two players breaking through barricade to get at supplies / loot. Excellent idea.

3. Helping player climb over walls. Good idea, but how would the last guy get over the wall? Although he could run around the wall to spread out the surprise.

4. Trading between players. Excellent idea. One way to insure that both players trade, is to only complete the trading when both players have clicked a "trade" button. If only one player clicks "trade", he can cancel the trade by clicking "cancel". Simple.

I love this thread. I will try to think of ideas as well. Good work, everyone. Cheers.

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

These are my thoughts.

 

1. There should be no penalty for people who want to play alone. Co-op instances can exist, but only for things that don't break the game for solo players. There are those who work and can't play at peak hours who should not be hindered, or discouraged from the game.

 

What I'm getting at here is groups don't always approach you nicely either, meaning, though they play co-op per say, they already have a group and don't mind killing some random guy for kicks.

 

I have taken a peak at the roadmap from time to time guys and have to say of those things the single most thing that will hinder kos that I've seen so far is the life-span feature. People are going to want to live but during the life span there should be things that happen to your player like beards and using a nice sharp knife to shave... Basically put, when someone has something to look forward to from living, then you have less people trying to murder you all the time.

 

After reading you comment, I looked at the 2015 roadmap for DayZ so I could see what you were talking about. I then decided to Google "Character life span + soft skills" (listed together on the roadmap), just to see if there was any clarification out there on these topics. 

 

I have to be honest. The talk on lifespans has me a little apprehensive. It seems that most take it to mean that your character will have a finite lifespan, regardless of your ability to survive. I really, really hope that isn't what they mean. Or, at least, I hope the lifespans are not artificially accelerated to the point of lasting a month or two before death. I really wouldn't want to constantly feel like there is no point to anything I'm doing since death is right around the corner anyway. It is not at all uncommon for my characters to last a month or more before I die to a bug since I do not actively seek out PVP encounters, but deal with them as they come up naturally.

 

The soft skills thing has me a little apprehensive as well. If that works the way people seem to think it might, I expect we will see people doing things that break immersion and cheapen the experience in the name of advancing a skill. If you think about it, there is almost no way we won't see people chopping down entire forests and leaving the wood to rot just so they can get better with an ax, or digging garden plots constantly just to improve some farming related numerical value. 

 

I'm not the type to grab a torch and pitchfork. I possess the maturity necessary to wait patiently for the devs to get to that stage of development before I am more forward about voicing my concerns. I also realize that these things will be implemented however the devs choose whether I approve or not. That said, I can't be the only one that is a bit more interested than normal in this part of DayZ development.

[capt. beefsteak 95]

After reading you comment, I looked at the 2015 roadmap for DayZ so I could see what you were talking about. I then decided to Google "Character life span + soft skills" (listed together on the roadmap), just to see if there was any clarification out there on these topics. 

 

I have to be honest. The talk on lifespans has me a little apprehensive. It seems that most take it to mean that your character will have a finite lifespan, regardless of your ability to survive. I really, really hope that isn't what they mean. Or, at least, I hope the lifespans are not artificially accelerated to the point of lasting a month or two before death. I really wouldn't want to constantly feel like there is no point to anything I'm doing since death is right around the corner anyway. It is not at all uncommon for my characters to last a month or more before I die to a bug since I do not actively seek out PVP encounters, but deal with them as they come up naturally.

 

The soft skills thing has me a little apprehensive as well. If that works the way people seem to think it might, I expect we will see people doing things that break immersion and cheapen the experience in the name of advancing a skill. If you think about it, there is almost no way we won't see people chopping down entire forests and leaving the wood to rot just so they can get better with an ax, or digging garden plots constantly just to improve some farming related numerical value. 

 

I'm not the type to grab a torch and pitchfork. I possess the maturity necessary to wait patiently for the devs to get to that stage of development before I am more forward about voicing my concerns. I also realize that these things will be implemented however the devs choose whether I approve or not. That said, I can't be the only one that is a bit more interested than normal in this part of DayZ development.

 

They could make it so you can't spam for these skills, using a timer 24 hour or so and make it last a week worth of time to attain... Giving goals to people to allow them to hone their toons to be able to perform specific efficient tasks would really help with KOS crap to a certain degree. The only issue I can find is that if you could do all tasks in an under populated server you have no risk... Hell at that point you could setup camp in downtown electro with little worry. I would want these traits/skills to be something that is specifically server bound. We already have enough kids being lazy and server hopping for high grade military gear to cripple immersion for the rest of us. No 5 minute timer is going to stop them from doing what they ultimatly seek to do, which is kill people and tell them how bad they are.... Just my 02

 

And as far as lifespans I think it would be hourly based... maybe a solid 200 hours on that toon, maybe more.. Maybe 10-20 hours per 5/10 years or so? Obviously they don't have us crawling down the coast in our diapers, but i imagine the toon is 25-30 already, so in ten hours of ingame play he's now 35/40? I'm sure it won't get dynamic enough to matter what you put in your body, I know the KOS issue would be back if someone tryed to snag my "Free Range Banana"

 

Some people might want the toons to live actual years, that would be insane but i would be cool with it, might only be a few years older by the time I'm ready to give up gaming though lol..

Edited June 13, 2015 by Deepfryer

[capt. beefsteak 95]

They could make it so you can't spam for these skills, using a timer 24 hour or so and make it last a week worth of time to attain... Giving goals to people to allow them to hone their toons to be able to perform specific efficient tasks would really help with KOS crap to a certain degree. The only issue I can find is that if you could do all tasks in an under populated server you have no risk... Hell at that point you could setup camp in downtown electro with little worry. I would want these traits/skills to be something that is specifically server bound. We already have enough kids being lazy and server hopping for high grade military gear to cripple immersion for the rest of us. No 5 minute timer is going to stop them from doing what they ultimatly seek to do, which is kill people and tell them how bad they are.... Just my 02

 

And as far as lifespans I think it would be hourly based... maybe a solid 200 hours on that toon, maybe more.. Maybe 10-20 hours per 5/10 years or so? Obviously they don't have us crawling down the coast in our diapers, but i imagine the toon is 25-30 already, so in ten hours of ingame play he's now 35/40? I'm sure it won't get dynamic enough to matter what you put in your body, I know the KOS issue would be back if someone tryed to snag my "Free Range Banana"

 

Some people might want the toons to live actual years, that would be insane but i would be cool with it, might only be a few years older by the time I'm ready to give up gaming though lol.. I'm kinda old anyway lol..

[NomadZ 33]

Nobody cares about you or your kiddie KoSing.

If you can't add something useful to the conversation you are either off-topic / spam or troll.

Stop it.

You and others were posting off-topic bull crap that nobody cares, here: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/225772-can-someone-tell-me-if-this-is-normal-thing-to-do/

[vfxtodd 125]

I share ColdAtrophy's concerns. I don't want there to be a finite lifespan either. After all, DayZ is a survival game. If you're forced to die after a certain amount of time, that would contradict the whole point of the game - survival.

REGARDING THE "BARRICADE WITH LOOT" IDEA:

I think there are ways to include lone wolves in the game regarding certain features. For instance, if a lone wolf comes upon a barricade with a "pristine" splitting axe or fire axe in his hands he should be able to take out the barricade and enjoy the spoils of newfound loot. Naturally, his axe will be damaged - badly damaged when he's done, but at least he's included in the benefits of his efforts.

Again, nay on lifespan limitations. That would be a game breaker for me.

Edited June 13, 2015 by BulletGarden

[galekast 70]

Feels like an Artificial restriction to force a certain playstyle.

 

I am all for activities requiring two people only if they require 2 people in real life as well.

 

Requiring 2 people to get an apple off a tree, dragging a body etc is just silly.

 

Its not particularly restrictive, it would just give the 2 or more people working together a bit of a time advantage.. 1 guy picking apples alone, could take ages, 2-3-4 people shaking loose apples together could result in 5-6 tumbling to the ground..

Same as the dynamic events, the barricade one specifically.. A lone walk could theoretically bust in there, use some tools and prise open a barricade or a vehicle to pull a heavy item out of the way.. But two people working together could shift the item more easily and swiftly.. I personally think little things like this are a great idea. I really love the idea of stumbling over random barricaded buildings or little server generated survivor hordes stashed in house or hidden under bushes etc. Not very many at all, but a few on each restart randomly around the map as an acknowledgement of those who were surviving before you arrived.. And anything that facilitates a bit of team work every now and then is a positive if you ask me..

[galekast 70]

And I always assumed any "soft skills" wouldn't exactly be trainable as such.. They would just be a natural progression. For example, the longer your character is alive and healthy, his fitness should improve which would give you a bit more stamina and sprint time (if and when they limit the sprinting).. Or if you are constantly carrying a full back pack, initially it should slow you down a lot (again, if weights affecting your speed/stamina is implemented) but you would slowly toughen up and be able to stay a bit closer to your normal speed. Those sorts of things should be what they are looking at, not farming/axe handling etc.. Nothing should be able to be trained, it should all just be natural progression as your character survives longer and thrives..

[NomadZ 33]

I don't believe multi-person mechanics work to reduce KOS. People will still find a way to KOS. I can group up with another player, for sometime, and when the right moments comes I kill them.

 

To reduce KOS, you need to reduce guns and ammo. People can't KOS you with melee easily. They have to get closer to you. KOS with basic weapons, like arrows, rocks, slingshots, spears, etc. are ok for me. Just reduce the Military Guns & Ammo madness. That's the only way. All these fancy mechanics are hard to implement even in the next 5 years. By that time who knows what happens...

[hemmo 55]

I suppose it go's two ways. Positive/negative consequences. You sum up two positive consequences, and very good ones as well. However, personally i would like to go 1 step further. The consequences for firing a gun in the cities should be a lot higher. Eventually there should be a 60% chance of receiving something very annoying. Why specifically a gun? Because that is exactly what causes the annoyance and when melee's are preferred, lots more interaction will happen. Automatically it should be connected to sound. (silencers could reduce effect by maybe 10%).

 

When firing a gun, the user receives a X amount of chance to summun one of multiple at the same time:

 

-A horde of 6 zombies

-A horde of zombie birds circling above him

-A horde of zombie dogs

-Pop's one or multiple eardrums (half or entire deaf for xx amount of time: increases at loud guns

-Receiving gunpowder/casing in the eye: blurry vision for xx amount of time

-Exploding/jamming shell when zoomed with a machine gun: unconscious for xx amount of time

 

The automatic machine guns are nice, but the effect of the damage they create in the short time frame, exceeds the point.

 

-The more shots they fire, the more noise attracts zombies out in the area: every 10 rounds 1 zombie

Edited June 13, 2015 by Hemmo NL

[dashender7 78]

I share ColdAtrophy's concerns. I don't want there to be a finite lifespan either. After all, DayZ is a survival game. If you're forced to die after a certain amount of time, that would contradict the whole point of the game - survival.

REGARDING THE "BARRICADE WITH LOOT" IDEA:

I think there are ways to include lone wolves in the game regarding certain features. For instance, if a lone wolf comes upon a barricade with a "pristine" splitting axe or fire axe in his hands he should be able to take out the barricade and enjoy the spoils of newfound loot. Naturally, his axe will be damaged - badly damaged when he's done, but at least he's included in the benefits of his efforts.

Again, nay on lifespan limitations. That would be a game breaker for me.

 

I suppose it go's two ways. Positive/negative consequences. You sum up two positive consequences, and very good ones as well. However, personally i would like to go 1 step further. The consequences for firing a gun in the cities should be a lot higher. Eventually there should be a 60% chance of receiving something very annoying. Why specifically a gun? Because that is exactly what causes the annoyance and when melee's are preferred, lots more interaction will happen. Automatically it should be connected to sound. (silencers could reduce effect by maybe 10%).

 

When firing a gun, the user receives a X amount of chance to summun one of multiple at the same time:

 

-A horde of 6 zombies

-A horde of zombie birds circling above him

-A horde of zombie dogs

-Pop's one or multiple eardrums (half or entire deaf for xx amount of time: increases at loud guns

-Receiving gunpowder/casing in the eye: blurry vision for xx amount of time

-Exploding/jamming shell when zoomed with a machine gun: unconscious for xx amount of time

 

The automatic machine guns are nice, but the effect of the damage they create in the short time frame, exceeds the point.

 

-The more shots they fire, the more noise attracts zombies out in the area: every 10 rounds 1 zombie

 

I think you're on the right track in where you're going with this - but some of the specific ideas might be a bit overpowered and unrealistic.

 

I do agree that the main effect of firing a weapon in a town or city area should be that it attracts massive hordes of zombies - I would even say not just zombies already wandering around, but that it should also cause zombies to spawn somewhat nearby and race toward the sound searching out the sound.  That alone would be a big discouragement to shooters.  

 

And I would extend that "zombie aggro" the full distance around populated areas that "snipers" tend to take pot shots from, so that they don't feel perfectly safe laying in the bushes shooting every player they see.

 

I share ColdAtrophy's concerns. I don't want there to be a finite lifespan either. After all, DayZ is a survival game. If you're forced to die after a certain amount of time, that would contradict the whole point of the game - survival.

Again, nay on lifespan limitations. That would be a game breaker for me.

 

Yep, another vote for nay on lifespan limitations - that is literally the worst idea ever.  The game is supposed to be about survival - why the heck would they want to de-incentivize players living for long long periods of time?  That seems absolutely ridiculous.  That would be a huge discouragement to me.  I've had players survive for weeks and months many times (those who run around KOS'ing on the coast can't even fathom this) - I'm talking well over 100 hours of gameplay often - and that always on higher population servers.

 

There are other ways to reward long survival - a player doesn't have to progress over 40 years of life to grow a darn good beard, or gain soft skills.  And I agree - most soft skills should simply progress as a player moves and survives, with great though as to how to make sure they're not exploitable.  For example, start players off with poor stamina and great amounts of weapon sway and reduce these over time. 

 

Also, I adamantly believe that there need to be discouragements to indiscriminate killing.  This has to be implemented to counter-balance the non-immersive effect of the fact that this is a video game, so many players resort to doing things they'd never do in real life, like killing for lola and griefing for fun - when you have the majority of players basically acting the role of a psychopath killing for fun in a game like this, it destroys immersion.  

 

This could be thought out so that a player who has to kill occasionally is not punished in any way, but such that a player who racks up too many kills too quickly suffers discouraging negative effects.  This would be like PTSD type effects or paranoia - because let's face it - in reality someone who kills everyone they see is not mentally healthy and would be suffering severe mental effects like paranoia. These could be manifest in the game mechanics by shuddering, weapon sway, nervous ticks and the like.  All of it can subside and go away if the player goes enough in game hours without killing anyone.

 

Why would any player not want this? Normal players who kill once in a while in the normal course of interacting would not be punished, but only those who show that they're playing only to hunt others for entertainment.  The only players who wouldn't want this are those who want to use this game to grief others by turning it into Battlefield 4 with a big map.

 

I submit again:  This is a video game. Many players see this as a chance for an incredibly immersive experience. Something new and deeper, with better player interaction that pulls one into the life of a person surviving in post-apocalypse. Because it is a game, this experience is literally impossible without deep, intentional, creative thought in game design and counter-balancing to encourage a more realistic and immersive VALUE FOR LIFE among players - even if it's just discouragement of run-and-gun by encouraging players to at least value their own self-preservation and survival.

[Whyherro123 2283]

You and others were posting off-topic bull crap that nobody cares, here: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/225772-can-someone-tell-me-if-this-is-normal-thing-to-do/

You do realize he is a forum mod,right? In fact, the forum administrator?

 

You ..... aren't going to win. You just aren't.

[-Gews- 7443]

Also, I adamantly believe that there need to be discouragements to indiscriminate killing.  This has to be implemented to counter-balance the non-immersive effect of the fact that this is a video game, so many players resort to doing things they'd never do in real life, like killing for lola and griefing for fun - when you have the majority of players basically acting the role of a psychopath killing for fun in a game like this, it destroys immersion.  

 

This could be thought out so that a player who has to kill occasionally is not punished in any way, but such that a player who racks up too many kills too quickly suffers discouraging negative effects.  This would be like PTSD type effects or paranoia - because let's face it - in reality someone who kills everyone they see is not mentally healthy and would be suffering severe mental effects like paranoia. These could be manifest in the game mechanics by shuddering, weapon sway, nervous ticks and the like.  All of it can subside and go away if the player goes enough in game hours without killing anyone.

 

Why would any player not want this? Normal players who kill once in a while in the normal course of interacting would not be punished, but only those who show that they're playing only to hunt others for entertainment.  The only players who wouldn't want this are those who want to use this game to grief others by turning it into Battlefield 4 with a big map.

 

Why would any player not want this? Let's see: because it unrealistically penalizes a play style? Some people might be playing as a psychopath. Some people might be into "tactical" squad play. The game shouldn't be deciding something as wishy-washy as your character's mental state, you are the character. As if people all react the same way. You could just as easily make the argument the more people you kill, the better your character gets at killing.

 

[cash81 506]

Well, I wouldn't make them requirements, but picking apples by your lonesome would go a lot slower than shaking a tree with a buddy. So give a small bonus for teamwork, but do not punish the loners.

Ive been apple picking, and in all honesty its pretty much the esiest thing in the world. Even climbing to the upper part is easy. And each tree s full of apples. There are also apples falling to the ground all over the place.

What im saying is that if we come across an orchard at the right time of year then theres no reason to come up empty handed at any tree like the way we have it now.

[tux (DayZ) 325]

After reading you comment, I looked at the 2015 roadmap for DayZ so I could see what you were talking about. I then decided to Google "Character life span + soft skills" (listed together on the roadmap), just to see if there was any clarification out there on these topics. 

 

I have to be honest. The talk on lifespans has me a little apprehensive. It seems that most take it to mean that your character will have a finite lifespan, regardless of your ability to survive. I really, really hope that isn't what they mean. Or, at least, I hope the lifespans are not artificially accelerated to the point of lasting a month or two before death. I really wouldn't want to constantly feel like there is no point to anything I'm doing since death is right around the corner anyway. It is not at all uncommon for my characters to last a month or more before I die to a bug since I do not actively seek out PVP encounters, but deal with them as they come up naturally.

 

The soft skills thing has me a little apprehensive as well. If that works the way people seem to think it might, I expect we will see people doing things that break immersion and cheapen the experience in the name of advancing a skill. If you think about it, there is almost no way we won't see people chopping down entire forests and leaving the wood to rot just so they can get better with an ax, or digging garden plots constantly just to improve some farming related numerical value. 

 

I'm not the type to grab a torch and pitchfork. I possess the maturity necessary to wait patiently for the devs to get to that stage of development before I am more forward about voicing my concerns. I also realize that these things will be implemented however the devs choose whether I approve or not. That said, I can't be the only one that is a bit more interested than normal in this part of DayZ development.

 

When I think of "finite lifespan" my mind immediately goes to the controversial bone condition stat (it has many other names attributed to it as well). Basically, it meant you could be 1-shot by a zombie at any time, and the more you got hit by zombies or bullets, the better chance you had of taking a critical hit. Wobo did a great video about the bone condition stat. 

 

Although this is probably more realistic, that your character couldn't magically heal with virtually no medical treatment, it really hindered the core ideas behind this game, being a survival game. Almost everyone I saw who commented on the "bone condition stat" thought it should be removed. No way should I be easier to kill the longer I stayed alive.

 

Luckily, it was recently addressed by a developer that this bone condition stat would regenerate over time whilst your character was in a "healthy" condition. I feel that this is the right direction to go in, but I don't think that lifespan conditions should be completely avoided. However, adding something similar to the "bone condition stat" would be counterproductive, however realistic it might be.

 

I suppose it go's two ways. Positive/negative consequences. You sum up two positive consequences, and very good ones as well. However, personally i would like to go 1 step further. The consequences for firing a gun in the cities should be a lot higher. Eventually there should be a 60% chance of receiving something very annoying. Why specifically a gun? Because that is exactly what causes the annoyance and when melee's are preferred, lots more interaction will happen. Automatically it should be connected to sound. (silencers could reduce effect by maybe 10%).

 

When firing a gun, the user receives a X amount of chance to summun one of multiple at the same time:

 

-A horde of 6 zombies

-A horde of zombie birds circling above him

-A horde of zombie dogs

-Pop's one or multiple eardrums (half or entire deaf for xx amount of time: increases at loud guns

-Receiving gunpowder/casing in the eye: blurry vision for xx amount of time

-Exploding/jamming shell when zoomed with a machine gun: unconscious for xx amount of time

 

The automatic machine guns are nice, but the effect of the damage they create in the short time frame, exceeds the point.

 

-The more shots they fire, the more noise attracts zombies out in the area: every 10 rounds 1 zombie

 

Once zeds and zed spawning is further refined, I'm sure that shooting a weapon in town will cause a large group of them to swarm to your position. 

 

I remember a year ago or maybe longer, zeds being attracted to gunshots was a real hassle when trying to firefight in town. 

 

However, with the current state of zeds (in these past few patches), they are changing a lot, and we really can't expect such mechanics to be working correctly yet. Just as every other important core mechanic that we're starting to see implemented (i.e. CLE, character controllers, inventory matrix), it will take time for these features to be working as intended for release. We're definitely on the right track though.

[dashender7 78]

 

Why would any player not want this? Let's see: because it unrealistically penalizes a play style? Some people might be playing as a psychopath. Some people might be into "tactical" squad play. The game shouldn't be deciding something as wishy-washy as your character's mental state, you are the character. As if people all react the same way. You could just as easily make the argument the more people you kill, the better your character gets at killing.

 

I see your point that some players want that experience. I'm saying that there are already literally dozens of games for tactical squad play, or for being the no-consequences iron willed super soldier killer who feels nothing - like ARMA for one, where players should be free to kill everyone they encounter.

 

You're obviously struggling to grasp what I'm saying, or maybe you're not interested in trying.

 

Why shouldn't this game be something different for a change?  Why does it have to be ARMA with zombies?  It hangs in the balance of being something special - something different in perhaps attempting to provide a different experience than primarily random killing like most video games with guns. That's what's unrealistic. It feels un-imersive and repetitive because no one values their life. That's the ultimate difference between feeling realistic and being just another shooter video game, maybe with a big map. Players value their gear more than their lives even. Maybe that's not what you want. Fine.

 

Try seeing it from the other side in terms of unrealistic penalty imposed.

 

The "PvP" player by nature forces their style of play onto everyone they encounter - they unrealistically get to dictate play style and commandeer the game by the very definition of what they do. Every encounter becomes a random deathmatch.

 

Why would a PvP player who just wants to shoot everyone play a game like this instead of ARMA or something else?  I'd argue in most cases it's because they're lazy and want the opportunity to kill and grief players who might not also be equipped with the most tact-cool gun, or who don't really want a fight - the low hanging fruit. Otherwise why not play ARMA or BF or something and fight players who are always similarly geared. If you want to squad play and are only interested in shootouts, I postulate that there are plenty of games for that.

 

How about the unrealistic penalty of being an immersive player in a world where a stupid and yes unrealistic amount of players are running around killing everything in sight like psychopaths, sniping at everything that moves for sheer lols, and not even valuing their own "life"? Ever think about that side of things?

 

How realistic is it in an immersive post-apocalypse to have a high percentage of people throwing their own lives away for lols and kill counts, camping some hill to shoot everything that moves, rather than worrying about preserving their own life?

 

Maybe this could be the one game where every player doesn't get to be the iron willed no care in the world expert killer with no care or value for his or his counterpart's life, and no penalty for racking up unnecessary kills?  Maybe this could be one game where you don't just jump in get the gun, kill, die, repeat.

 

Never stop to think about that unrealistic penalty?  If you'd have read my other posts, you'd have been enlightened about a little thing called Value for Life.  If you want a realistic game - a term you used - then let's start there. Because it's just that - a video game - then by definition artificial game mechanics must be added to encourage players to preserve their own life, rather than "oh well, I died again," I'll respawn, suicide until I get the spot I want, then go back to getting a super soldier gun and killing everyone I can."

 

You see, every game is just a compilation of mechanics that encourage one thing or another.

 

In any video game, if you give players guns and let them do whatever they want, it devolves and spirals into another PVP killing fest.

 

Why can't there be a game that doesn't do that?

 

None or not many so far have truly tackled VALUE FOR LIFE in a way that brings immersion and a more realistic scenario for interaction with others in game.

 

I'm not saying no killing at all - I'm just saying that to bring a realistic level of variety to player interaction and make this an immersive survival apocalypse, they'll have to be intentional with game mechanics.

[emuthreat 2837]

Those are really great ideas here.

One easy thing to do would be increase the deadliness of the infected. Some places could be so infested that a lone wolf could never make it out alive, or only with heavy weapons.

I actually had a situation when I was a newspawn and met another newspawn who was being chased by an infected.

I yelled to him to run to me and we killed it together with our fists.

He gave me food as a thank you and our ways parted.

If infected were more dangerous people would have to work together more.

But compared to your ideas, mine sounds pretty obvious and lame. lol

I really hope that it becomes possible to outsmart hordes of infected.  For instance, Novy Sobor is just lousy with zeds, so you carefully sneak down to the farm complex with a propane tank, place it in open view, retreat a few hundred yards, and try like hell to make the shot on the first try. the resulting explosion will send the drooling masses a-shambling off in that direction to see what the commotion is all about; giving you a window of relative safety to loot out the PD.

[tux (DayZ) 325]

I really hope that it becomes possible to outsmart hordes of infected.  For instance, Novy Sobor is just lousy with zeds, so you carefully sneak down to the farm complex with a propane tank, place it in open view, retreat a few hundred yards, and try like hell to make the shot on the first try. the resulting explosion will send the drooling masses a-shambling off in that direction to see what the commotion is all about; giving you a window of relative safety to loot out the PD.

 

Having zeds that were stronger, faster, and plentiful would ultimately discourage KOS. Aren't they supposed to be infected, rather than "undead"?

 

If I had to save all of my shots carefully just to stave off the zeds, I'd be recruiting everyone that I saw to shoot at zeds instead of at me. 

[-Gews- 7443]

I see your point that some players want that experience. I'm saying that there are already literally dozens of games for tactical squad play, or for being the no-consequences iron willed super soldier killer who feels nothing - like ARMA for one, where players should be free to kill everyone they encounter.

There are dozens of games for nonstop player interaction.

 

You're obviously struggling to grasp what I'm saying, or maybe you're not interested in trying.

 

Why shouldn't this game be something different for a change?  Why does it have to be ARMA with zombies?  It hangs in the balance of being something special - something different in perhaps attempting to provide a different experience than primarily random killing like most video games with guns. That's what's unrealistic. It feels un-imersive and repetitive because no one values their life. That's the ultimate difference between feeling realistic and being just another shooter video game, maybe with a big map. Players value their gear more than their lives even. Maybe that's not what you want. Fine.

Giving players who kill others Parkinson's and psychotic hallucinations will not make players value their lives.

 

Try seeing it from the other side in terms of unrealistic penalty imposed.

 

The "PvP" player by nature forces their style of play onto everyone they encounter - they unrealistically get to dictate play style and commandeer the game by the very definition of what they do. Every encounter becomes a random deathmatch.

 

Why would a PvP player who just wants to shoot everyone play a game like this instead of ARMA or something else?  I'd argue in most cases it's because they're lazy and want the opportunity to kill and grief players who might not also be equipped with the most tact-cool gun, or who don't really want a fight - the low hanging fruit. Otherwise why not play ARMA or BF or something and fight players who are always similarly geared. If you want to squad play and are only interested in shootouts, I postulate that there are plenty of games for that.

A lot of people do play ARMA. Those are different games. I may as well ask why those after more "interactions" aren't playing DayZRP, H1Z1 PvE or Altis Life.

 

How about the unrealistic penalty of being an immersive player in a world where a stupid and yes unrealistic amount of players are running around killing everything in sight like psychopaths, sniping at everything that moves for sheer lols, and not even valuing their own "life"? Ever think about that side of things?

 

How realistic is it in an immersive post-apocalypse to have a high percentage of people throwing their own lives away for lols and kill counts, camping some hill to shoot everything that moves, rather than worrying about preserving their own life?

 

Maybe this could be the one game where every player doesn't get to be the iron willed no care in the world expert killer with no care or value for his or his counterpart's life, and no penalty for racking up unnecessary kills?  Maybe this could be one game where you don't just jump in get the gun, kill, die, repeat.

 

Never stop to think about that unrealistic penalty?  If you'd have read my other posts, you'd have been enlightened about a little thing called Value for Life.  If you want a realistic game - a term you used - then let's start there. Because it's just that - a video game - then by definition artificial game mechanics must be added to encourage players to preserve their own life, rather than "oh well, I died again," I'll respawn, suicide until I get the spot I want, then go back to getting a super soldier gun and killing everyone I can."

 

You see, every game is just a compilation of mechanics that encourage one thing or another.

 

In any video game, if you give players guns and let them do whatever they want, it devolves and spirals into another PVP killing fest.

 

Why can't there be a game that doesn't do that?

 

None or not many so far have truly tackled VALUE FOR LIFE in a way that brings immersion and a more realistic scenario for interaction with others in game.

 

I'm not saying no killing at all - I'm just saying that to bring a realistic level of variety to player interaction and make this an immersive survival apocalypse, they'll have to be intentional with game mechanics.

 

"Value for life" can only be reached by incentives for living and penalties for death. Not penalties for PVP. You can force players not to kill each other but at that point it's no longer staying true to the original concept of DayZ. Interactions and decisions should be "organic."

 

As Rocket said:

"... I wanted to make systems that do not imply judgement: they should not tell you how to play. However, there also needed to be impact to your decisions. There will be decisions such as “do I pick up the ammo or do I pick up the food?” But you also face decisions like “do I shoot that person, or do I not?” If you shoot the person, there should be some effect from it. There shouldn’t be a direct negative consequence, of course, it shouldn’t tell you how to play, but there needed to be something ... So what we did was implement that bandit system, which highlights the killers. But I don’t think it works. I think we need to have skins that are based not on your humanity, but on things that you find, craft, and use. That should allow people to craft their characters how they want. To appear as the character you actually play."

 

I can see where people are coming from with their requests to err more towards co-operative gameplay. But the fact is, L4D2 would provide a much better co-operative gameplay environment currently. The main focus of this is survival, and interactions with players are the most serious aspect.

 

This means we need the bandits, they are needed to supply the tension. The fact a player can do anything and "get away with it" and a reason the experience is so compelling.

Q: Will there be any system to monitor the psychological state of your character? In reality all the murders, blood, body examinations, mass graves etc. influence personality very much. Even ingame it is influencing, I killed just one player in my whole game time and still feel guilty for it. [mel_F]

A: We will track stats, have some kind of visual humanity indicator (facial expression is the current favorite as their is already engine support for it), and also have blood on you hands if you loot a recently killed corpse. I think having a hard effect of your characters psychological state is not within scope, as it kind of can break immersion. Some people can deal with almost anything. It would also be extremely hard to balance.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Gews

[sachad 1016]

Ive been apple picking, and in all honesty its pretty much the esiest thing in the world. Even climbing to the upper part is easy. And each tree s full of apples. There are also apples falling to the ground all over the place.

What im saying is that if we come across an orchard at the right time of year then theres no reason to come up empty handed at any tree like the way we have it now.

 

Still time-consuming if you want to pick more than just the minimum to stay alive. I hope that as time progresses, the dangers from zombies and the environment will be great enough that spending five minutes picking apples becomes a risky endeavour, and having a second pair of hands will speed up the process greatly.

[dashender7 78]

There are dozens of games for nonstop player interaction.

 

Giving players who kill others Parkinson's and psychotic hallucinations will not make players value their lives.

 

A lot of people do play ARMA. Those are different games. I may as well ask why those after more "interactions" aren't playing DayZRP, H1Z1 PvE or Altis Life.

 

 

"Value for life" can only be reached by incentives for living and penalties for death. Not penalties for PVP. You can force players not to kill each other but at that point it's no longer staying true to the original concept of DayZ. Interactions and decisions should be "organic."

 

As Rocket said:

"... I wanted to make systems that do not imply judgement: they should not tell you how to play. However, there also needed to be impact to your decisions. There will be decisions such as “do I pick up the ammo or do I pick up the food?” But you also face decisions like “do I shoot that person, or do I not?” If you shoot the person, there should be some effect from it. There shouldn’t be a direct negative consequence, of course, it shouldn’t tell you how to play, but there needed to be something ... So what we did was implement that bandit system, which highlights the killers. But I don’t think it works. I think we need to have skins that are based not on your humanity, but on things that you find, craft, and use. That should allow people to craft their characters how they want. To appear as the character you actually play."

 

 

 

You're still missing the whole point, and I'm pretty sure that's intentional.

 

You straw-manned everything I said by addressing it as if I were asking for a system where no one can ever kill anyone. I'm not asking for PVE where bullets go right through a character, or a reliance on a community like DayZRP where admin policing is the way it's done and most of the adrenaline is gone - I made that clear but you ignored it.  I'm just asking for some serious balancing that takes some of the power and initiate out of the hands of the habitual killer, at least some of the time, due to the fact that this is a game where by definition without intentional mechanics in place, players don't face much discouragement from just running and gunning all the time.

 

You keep talking about "authentic" and "realistic" as if a DayZ where kiddies run around on the coast and grief and troll and shoot at everything that moves "just because they can" and there's nothing to discourage them, is the best representation of both approximating reality and of what this game could be - because that's what it is has been and will be without some well thought out mechanics. 

 

Let's be honest, they're not role playing a cold iron willed psychopath, they're just themselves taking out their inferiority complex and pent up aggression on whoever they meet in cyberspace or entertaining themselves by the challenge of killing other players at least.

 

I'm talking about counter-balances that, while of course not necessarily reflecting real life perfectly (as if this whole "no consequences" thing does that!), at least could balance out some of that issue, and you seem in favor of every existing mechanic (or lack thereof) which encourages players to kill everyone they see and not worry about it, nor worry about dying. 

 

You don't care to see that the game in and of itself as it stands is an unbalanced one that in every way encourages senseless killing and puts all of the power in the hands of the griefer, troll, camper, or PvP'er.  Every aspect is in their favor in a really deeply unrealistic way because there is no consequence and namely, death itself does not even matter all that much.

 

And by the way, Rocket said those things in 2012 apparently - he's now long gone and the devs have learned a lot since then, so we'll see.

 

And yeah there are private shard communities and there will eventually be mods, so I guess that's the answer after all perhaps we waste our breath debating.

 

My basic premise is that the consequence-less open sandbox game with weapons and no strong counter balancing mechanics will always devolve into a senseless PvP mess that encourages the least common denominator, lowest level of gameplay and interaction, and puts all the power in the hands of the killer, and is thus very unrealistic.  It is essentially a griefer's paradise.

 

You are okay with that I guess - and I am not stoked about it.  That's where we end up.

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

Handjobs.

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

When I think of "finite lifespan" my mind immediately goes to the controversial bone condition stat (it has many other names attributed to it as well). Basically, it meant you could be 1-shot by a zombie at any time, and the more you got hit by zombies or bullets, the better chance you had of taking a critical hit. Wobo did a great video about the bone condition stat. 

 

Although this is probably more realistic, that your character couldn't magically heal with virtually no medical treatment, it really hindered the core ideas behind this game, being a survival game. Almost everyone I saw who commented on the "bone condition stat" thought it should be removed. No way should I be easier to kill the longer I stayed alive.

 

Luckily, it was recently addressed by a developer that this bone condition stat would regenerate over time whilst your character was in a "healthy" condition. I feel that this is the right direction to go in, but I don't think that lifespan conditions should be completely avoided. However, adding something similar to the "bone condition stat" would be counterproductive, however realistic it might be.

 

 

As far as I understood it, some bit of information that was data mined from the game was misinterpreted in parallel with some bug that really did cause some obnoxious damage amounts and the myth of "spinal fracturing" was born, taking on a life of its' own as things on the internet often do. It was made clear multiple times that this was never by design but no one listened so the devs just said <bang, bang, bang on keyboard> "M'kay, it's probably fixed now".  :D

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support this bone condition thing whatsoever, other than poor anecdotal evidence. My suspicion has always been that a combination of players with post-processing turned off and not seeing visual indication of damage taken, lag, and/or desync was more the culprit than anything else.

 

Sometimes I can shoot a zombie in the head and it doesn't die. Same bullets, same gun, the next 50 will die in one headshot. Once I punched my buddy in the arm (long story) and his pants got ruined and his leg was broken. One punch to the upper arm. The game has an issue with applying damage to the correct body part. Maybe that one hit you think you took was actually 14 according to the server and even though you thought the zombie was hitting you in the chest, it was smashing your skull in. No way to tell with alpha, but even WOBO admits that there is absolutely nothing in the game files that corresponds to the existence of such a stat.

Edited June 14, 2015 by ColdAtrophy