Multi-Person Mechanics to discourage KOS

[Evil Minion 943]

Ok so we take all the guns away, no this doesn't make anything better. Ask me why? Ok good, you see people that can't find guns easily know that it's not easy for others to find guns. So whats the next best thing to upset those playing the game? Melee weapons, because if i know it's a pita to find a rifle for myself then it would be for you as well so chances are you won't have one and then everyone will chase you with an axe until you are dead.

Hardly. The major difference is that in order to kill someone with an axe you have to get close and put yourself at a risk. Your target has more options to react and avoid death. Compare that to "aim, click and drop him from afar before he even knows you are there". It's no longer as easy. And player threat goes down which means it's less viable to kill someone just to be sure.

Now completely taking away guns would take out significant parts of the gameplay (we do not want this). However, making them rarer allows for more room where player threat is relatively low which might benefit both social gameplay and melee PvP. It also adds value to low tier firearms as you are happy to at least have something as opposed to the current "almost everyone got a better gun" and makes finding a firearm in general more rewarding.

Ammo is a special case as it should be rare but not in a binary "you either got 40 bullets or zero" way. Instead there should be smaller amounts of bullets so you can use your weapon but not a lot. This way you have to think about actually shooting some random guy - you can drop him but it would get the attention of greater threats and cost a bullet you might need to fight them off.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Evil Minion

[xalienax 621]

Hardly. The major difference is that in order to kill someone with an axe you have to get close and put yourself at a risk. Your target has more options to react and avoid death. Compare that to "aim, click and drop him from afar before he even knows you are there". It's no longer as easy. And player threat goes down which means it's less viable to kill someone just to be sure.

Now completely taking away guns would take out significant parts of the gameplay (we do not want this). However, making them rarer allows for more room where player threat is relatively low which might benefit both social gameplay and melee PvP. It also adds value to low tier firearms as you are happy to at least have something as opposed to the current "almost everyone got a better gun" and makes finding a firearm in general more rewarding.

Ammo is a special case as it should be rare but not in a binary "you either got 40 bullets or zero" way. Instead there should be smaller amounts of bullets so you can use your weapon but not a lot. This way you have to think about actually shooting some random guy - you can drop him but it would get the attention of greater threats and cost a bullet you might need to fight them off.

I've been advocating this from the beginning, and i think this is one of the great potentials for 'global loot economy'. I'd like to find just a few loose rounds sometimes. remember that chernarus area exists in the same universe supposedly as the events that took place in A2. All the guns didn't just disappear, and while many may have significant wear and tear it stands to reason a good amount of them would still be kicking about in various conditions. Ammo on the other hand, would be a rather finite resource once society is a distant memory and gone with it modern production methods. Having a rifle and just a handful of bullets should be 'doing prettty dam good'. one should have to really weigh rather they want to engage based on the very real possibility they might not come across any more ammo for a few days. In a survival scenario; everything that was dependent on pre-outbreak production should be a massive luxury.

[JohnMcClane 19]

KoS goes down. Because the chance to encounter a player with gun (= the one that can kill you from afar) is greatly reduced thus "paranoia kills" are less justified. On the other side less of the "kill for the lulz" players actually get guns to pull it off.

.

 

If we get rid of most of the guns, nobody will get shot anymore. That's how we (the US) stopped everyone from doing drugs.. :rolleyes:

 

See how stupid that sounds? This entire thread is a parrot of the real life gun control debate we constantly have in the US. It always boils down to Those with guns have power over those without.

 

Complaining about KoS is pointless, because thankfully the game isn't the way a few of you want it to be. Most of us are very happy with the current balance of power, and enjoy it. There are multiple play styles. The reason I enjoy this game so much is because it is the closest thing I have found in a video game that can recreate the feeling of fear I that crave. Go someplace shitty in the world for some period of time, and you too will understand this feeling - and rush.

 

If you want to run around gunless and naked, have fun. Do whatever you want, it's your game. Arguing opinion is pointless. I'll keep on keeping on, and enjoy my long lived (and very well armed) characters.

[vfxtodd 123]

To be honest, the idea of finding just a few rounds of ammo has been happening to me lately.

Making anything rare works against one play style over another. The whole point of DayZ- to me - is learning how to survive with whatever you have. Limiting supplies also punishes fresh spawns. When someone spawns in fresh they're at the mercy of someone who's stayed alive and is armed.

What's key to balance is testing various amounts of supplies of food, weapons and ammo. Not just arbitrarily making something rare. After all, what is rare to one person is too much to another. That's part of game development. So many people keep forgetting that DayZ is still being developed.

Developers could ask players to report where they spawned and how long it takes them to get sufficient food and become FULLY armed (carrying ammo and matching weapon). From there they can adjust the amount and frequency of food, ammo and weapons. "Rare" is a subjective word. Fair balance can only be achieved when all play styles are taken into account.

[xalienax 621]

To be honest, the idea of finding just a few rounds of ammo has been happening to me lately.

Making anything rare works against one play style over another. The whole point of DayZ- to me - is learning how to survive with whatever you have. Limiting supplies also punishes fresh spawns. When someone spawns in fresh they're at the mercy of someone who's stayed alive and is armed.

What's key to balance is testing various amounts of supplies of food, weapons and ammo. Not just arbitrarily making something rare. After all, what is rare to one person is too much to another. That's part of game development. So many people keep forgetting that DayZ is still being developed.

Developers could ask players to report where they spawned and how long it takes them to get sufficient food and become FULLY armed (carrying ammo and matching weapon). From there they can adjust the amount and frequency of food, ammo and weapons. "Rare" is a subjective word. Fair balance can only be achieved when all play styles are taken into account.

Survival isn't fair. Id like simply being able to keep my character alive being an achievement. as a freshie I should be AVOIDING confrontation at any cost. 

 

Imho a 60 Player servers population should look something like:

 

2-3 Kitted out guys (assault rifle/MG/Sniper/Other military gear). These folks have been alive for weeks maybe even months. they likely also have friends.

15-20 "armed" guys. these folks have weapon very capable of dropping other players but better spend ammo carefully. they also dont have the top end weapons and attachments the top tier folks do.

20-30 "Bare bones" survivors. These guys have a weapon best used for hunting or a last resort in a confrontation. Ammunition is priceless and should probably be used to kill thier next meal rather then death matching in elektro.

5-10 freshies. Self explanatory. these guys are just starting out. if they make it one rung up the ladder they've already beaten the odds.

 

the last thing i want is a BALANCED dayZ. that would be terrible. I want a very real risk of dieing because i chose to not carry that canteen or food item.

[vfxtodd 123]

Survival isn't fair. Id like simply being able to keep my character alive being an achievement. as a freshie I should be AVOIDING confrontation at any cost.

Imho a 60 Player servers population should look something like:

2-3 Kitted out guys (assault rifle/MG/Sniper/Other military gear). These folks have been alive for weeks maybe even months. they likely also have friends.

15-20 "armed" guys. these folks have weapon very capable of dropping other players but better spend ammo carefully. they also dont have the top end weapons and attachments the top tier folks do.

20-30 "Bare bones" survivors. These guys have a weapon best used for hunting or a last resort in a confrontation. Ammunition is priceless and should probably be used to kill thier next meal rather then death matching in elektro.

5-10 freshies. Self explanatory. these guys are just starting out. if they make it one rung up the ladder they've already beaten the odds.

the last thing i want is a BALANCED dayZ. that would be terrible. I want a very real risk of dieing because i chose to not carry that canteen or food item.

.

Survival isn't fair? What the hell? This is a game. The design of the game has to be fair and balanced to support all play styles. Otherwise it's a complete waste of everyone's time and money.

So, a 60-player server SHOULD look how YOU described? Are you insane? What in the world inspired you think you can dictate the frequency of kitted players, to semi-armed players, to fresh spawns? How in the world did you come to these strange percentages?

Thank God you're not on the development team. DayZ would be dead before it left alpha. I like where DayZ is at with .57. If you're not happy, fine. Wait for DayZ to get released and come back to see what happens.

Edited June 18, 2015 by BulletGarden

[JohnMcClane 19]

Lol at anyone complaining about the difficulty of an MULTIPLAYER/OPEN WORLD/POST APOCALYPTIC/RULELESS COMPUTER GAME.

[FlimFlamm 509]

Lol at anyone complaining about the difficulty of an MULTIPLAYER/OPEN WORLD/POST APOCALYPTIC/RULELESS COMPUTER GAME.

 

Personally I love difficulty. My idea of player progression is becoming better at the game because of knowledge and skill, not arbitrary skill points.

[FlimFlamm 509]

I came to realize that I mis-worded the title of this post. It should have been :

Multi-Person Mechanics to encourage COOPERATION

I realized that how to actually encourage the kind of things this thread was getting at is a much larger can of worms. So I made a new thread about it and am linking it here because it has several caveats regarding the emergent trend of KOS'ing.

 

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/226172-emergence-in-dayz-what-is-it-is-it-good-kosing/?p=2277928

[Xbow 362]

Early in development rocket talked about introducing multi person interaction mechanics that supposedly would help to reduce KoS'ing. As it stands there is only a single multi-person mechanic, and that would be administering blood and saline bags. Please share any ideas you might have for interesting multi person mechanics that would be easy to-implement and would help deal with the constant KoSing.

 

I like that fact that people are thinking this way but greed and lust on the part of some players for the gear that others have acquired is a powerful incentive to KoS and loot your corpse. The other day I entered a house with blue trim (a food house) to search for some canned goods and a clown with a hockey stick and a helmet tried to bash me I dusted him with a shotgun. The dude had nothing to lose by attacking me except a character that was probably less than an hour old he wanted a shortcut. The cure, automatically rendering all of a players gear that was killed by another player into a ruined status (unless head shot) removes the incentive to kill for gain. But then there are the clowns that KoS for sport not gain and those folks are incurable IMHO. But KoS is a part of the game and in a real Post Apoc world there would be plenty of that action because of the character of true human nature. Just as in real life trying to force people into a cooperative mode is a waste of time.      

Edited June 18, 2015 by Xbow

[FlimFlamm 509]

I like that fact that people are thinking this way but greed and lust on the part of some players for the gear that others have acquired is a powerful incentive to KoS and loot your corpse. The other day I entered a house with blue trim (a food house) to search for some canned goods and a clown with a hockey stick and a helmet tried to bash me I dusted him with a shotgun. The dude had nothing to lose by attacking me except a character that was probably less than an hour old he wanted a shortcut. The cure, automatically rendering all of a players gear that was killed by another player into a ruined status (unless head shot) removes the incentive to kill for gain. But then there are the clowns that KoS for sport not gain and those folks are incurable IMHO. But KoS is a part of the game and in a real Post Apoc world there would be plenty of that action because of the character of true human nature. Just as in real life trying to force people into a cooperative mode is a waste of time.      

 

I think people in general want to cooperate, it's just so hard and risky to do so. Aside from there currently being no adequate long term objectives for players to cooperate on and work toward, the fragility of what we have after we spend a few weeks on a single life is what makes us so fearful of losing it. We have no safe way to store loot long term which means when we get killed we lose everything. We have no way to communicate and to at least try and meet or negotiate with one another. I'm sure that if we communicated enough we would realize cooperation is more lucrative than competition.

 

If we had a sense of community and communication we could band together against KOSers, and if people could safely store loot then they might not feel the need to constantly KOS.

 

Regarding tents: They are not safe because they get found quite easily. They are horribly buggy and currently aren't even persistent, hence nobody uses them.

 

We are pretty much similar in features to the vanilla DayZ mod, it's only natural to conclude that all trends in player behavior will converge toward KOSing in the current standalone build just as in the mod.

Edited June 19, 2015 by FlimFlamm

[xalienax 621]

.

Survival isn't fair? What the hell? This is a game. The design of the game has to be fair and balanced to support all play styles. Otherwise it's a complete waste of everyone's time and money.

So, a 60-player server SHOULD look how YOU described? Are you insane? What in the world inspired you think you can dictate the frequency of kitted players, to semi-armed players, to fresh spawns? How in the world did you come to these strange percentages?

Thank God you're not on the development team. DayZ would be dead before it left alpha. I like where DayZ is at with .57. If you're not happy, fine. Wait for DayZ to get released and come back to see what happens.

it should be hard. it should be brutal. simply staying alive should be beating the odds. You shouldn't have it easy. no one should. 

 

as for my numbers? rough ballparks. what i was trying to illustrate is the relative rarity I'd like to see. i want to be Hard-pressed to simply stay alive. that has nothing to do with with not 'supporing other play styles' you can still be PvP oriented. you can still rob, steal from, or scam other players. or just kill them and take thier stuff. But messing up with your last 3 rounds should be a risk you have to think about. you should not be 'kitted out' in your first few days. you should be simply trying to get in order the means to stop yourself form dieing to hunger/thirst/the elements.

 

I want situations like;

-> I have the drop on another player..ehhm.. but its kinda far.. maybe im not that good of a shot. shit! i only have 2 bullets. maybe i should just slip back into the treeline and look for an animal or an easier 'mark'.

 

-> Hmm id really like this extra drum mag.. but if i don't keep this canteen of purified water.. i may not find another source that's 100% safe... and even so am i really going to come up with 75 rounds? better question can i afford to just spam 75 rounds? probably not.

 

get my drift? Hard decisions. Hard to stay alive. Everything should be complicated by the fact that you can't count on finding everything you need easily. even the basics should take a bit of work.

[eno 1049]

I've read a bunch of this thread as it is interesting and I do support a more cooperative style of play. The whole gun control debate will rage on as will the legitimacy of a KOS playstyle. 

 

I often see the negative effects of gun use on the external environment- ie: gunshots reveal your location... stir zombie hordes... whatever. I don't think I've seen a lot of commentary on the effects of a gunshot on your character's senses- hearing in particular. 

 

I think about the fact that I can sit there and hear a mosquito buzzing by my ear... then I fire a clip from an automatic weapon and immediately after the clip is empty I can still hear a fly. I'm sure many of you firearm enthusiasts can attest that firing a weapon is going to knock your hearing back more than a smidge. The more you fire it, the more of an impact there will be on your hearing for a longer amount of time. 

 

I'd definitely be less inclined to be firing a weapon off if I knew the result of a single shot was going to be either dampened hearing or an annoying ringing in my ears for 5-20 minutes (depending on the discharge) AND an increased chance of alerting the zombie horde. In addition it would have an impact on anyone in the immediate area- your cohorts... your opponents.

 

 

Is it going to stop idiots from running around killing things with their volume turned off? No- I suppose not... but it's a mechanic I think would help add a reason not to just fire the weapon off each time you see someone. People are shooting first and asking questions later because they have no reason not to. We can't add value to human life in the game... but we can add value to making a decision not to use the weapon as often.

 

In the event you're fighting for your life... now it's something that you're ready to tolerate or work harder to avoid in the future.

 

Having hearing protection of the over the ear variety might be a solution... but would be visible from a distance and might be a "tell" as to a players intentions.

 

Sorry- was a bit off center for the thread in terms of cooperation... but the thread seems equally pointed at trying to figure out what would limit the tendency to shoot everything.  

Edited June 19, 2015 by ENO75

[vfxtodd 123]

it should be hard. it should be brutal. simply staying alive should be beating the odds. You shouldn't have it easy. no one should. 

 

as for my numbers? rough ballparks. what i was trying to illustrate is the relative rarity I'd like to see. i want to be Hard-pressed to simply stay alive. that has nothing to do with with not 'supporing other play styles' you can still be PvP oriented. you can still rob, steal from, or scam other players. or just kill them and take thier stuff. But messing up with your last 3 rounds should be a risk you have to think about. you should not be 'kitted out' in your first few days. you should be simply trying to get in order the means to stop yourself form dieing to hunger/thirst/the elements.

 

I want situations like;

-> I have the drop on another player..ehhm.. but its kinda far.. maybe im not that good of a shot. shit! i only have 2 bullets. maybe i should just slip back into the treeline and look for an animal or an easier 'mark'.

 

-> Hmm id really like this extra drum mag.. but if i don't keep this canteen of purified water.. i may not find another source that's 100% safe... and even so am i really going to come up with 75 rounds? better question can i afford to just spam 75 rounds? probably not.

 

get my drift? Hard decisions. Hard to stay alive. Everything should be complicated by the fact that you can't count on finding everything you need easily. even the basics should take a bit of work.

You shouldn't be kitted out in your first few days??!! Wtf?

What utter nonsense. It should take you a few days to get armed or geared? If that (stupid) idea was implemented we would ALL be dead before we found a weapon. This is about supporting ALL play styles.

When the day comes that DayZ is released, there is a good chance we'll be looking at full servers with players who cover all imaginable styles of gameplay. Forcing players to take several days before they can find sufficient protection will most certainly lead to more players DYING then surviving. DayZ is already difficult. When the servers are full, survival will become exponentially more difficult.

Not everyone who gets armed will go on a KOS spree. I've been fully armed most of 144+ hours I've played DayZ. Yet I've hardly engaged more then 5 players in that time period. But I defend anyone who chooses the KOS style in DayZ.

In the end, DayZ will probably be a difficult game to survive in. I trust the developers on this. Given the poor reasoning skills I've witnessed in these forums, I only trust a few people who post here. The rest are just selfish whiners who seem bent on creating a DayZ that supports their play style and screw the rest of us. Unless your ideas are inclusive of all play styles, without favoritism, I'm not interested.

[robophant 102]

What if I knock you over the head and take all your gear and after a while, when you have looted up again, I will do it all over again. Does this count as Mulit-Person role?

[Xbow 362]

I think people in general want to cooperate, it's just so hard and risky to do so. Aside from there currently being no adequate long term objectives for players to cooperate on and work toward, the fragility of what we have after we spend a few weeks on a single life is what makes us so fearful of losing it. We have no safe way to store loot long term which means when we get killed we lose everything. We have no way to communicate and to at least try and meet or negotiate with one another. I'm sure that if we communicated enough we would realize cooperation is more lucrative than competition.

 

If we had a sense of community and communication we could band together against KOSers, and if people could safely store loot then they might not feel the need to constantly KOS.

 

Regarding tents: They are not safe because they get found quite easily. They are horribly buggy and currently aren't even persistent, hence nobody uses them.

 

We are pretty much similar in features to the vanilla DayZ mod, it's only natural to conclude that all trends in player behavior will converge toward KOSing in the current standalone build just as in the mod.

 I remember one time at the old NE AF when I was a new player and the NE AF  was a shooting gallery I ran into a good guy that hooked me up with a UK vest full of chow and gave me twenty 00 shotgun shells for my sawed off. I gave him a can opener that he wanted (I had a knife) . It was a good session because after the trading was done we got shot at from the tree line to the west and he told me to flank them from the right while he kept their heads down with his M4 and moved closer. I ran up on the two jerks and blasted one down and my benefactor nailed the other with a head shot almost simultaneously. We looted their corpses and parted company   

Edited June 20, 2015 by Xbow

[Xbow 362]

What if I knock you over the head and take all your gear and after a while, when you have looted up again, I will do it all over again. Does this count as Mulit-Person role?

To even approach me with a weapon drawn will get you a bullet to the brain   

[xalienax 621]

You shouldn't be kitted out in your first few days??!! Wtf?

What utter nonsense. It should take you a few days to get armed or geared? If that (stupid) idea was implemented we would ALL be dead before we found a weapon. This is about supporting ALL play styles.

When the day comes that DayZ is released, there is a good chance we'll be looking at full servers with players who cover all imaginable styles of gameplay. Forcing players to take several days before they can find sufficient protection will most certainly lead to more players DYING then surviving. DayZ is already difficult. When the servers are full, survival will become exponentially more difficult.

Not everyone who gets armed will go on a KOS spree. I've been fully armed most of 144+ hours I've played DayZ. Yet I've hardly engaged more then 5 players in that time period. But I defend anyone who chooses the KOS style in DayZ.

In the end, DayZ will probably be a difficult game to survive in. I trust the developers on this. Given the poor reasoning skills I've witnessed in these forums, I only trust a few people who post here. The rest are just selfish whiners who seem bent on creating a DayZ that supports their play style and screw the rest of us. Unless your ideas are inclusive of all play styles, without favoritism, I'm not interested.

i don't care about KOS. it always has been and always will be there. PvP should not be the guiding purpose of development. dayZ is a survival game that leans more towards simulation. This is coming from a PvP player mind you. I have never and will never play 'berry picking simulator'- but i dont want to have all the best stuff in just 1 or 2 sessions. i want to have one character 2,3 6 weeks later and still have stuff im 'working on' rather that's end-game content like bases and farming or top tier weapons and kit for them. I should Never be in a position to take resources for granted. ever.

 

I don't want to penalize any one play style. you have as much chance of finding the bullets as the next guy. that said simply not being in fear of starvation or the elements should be priority #1 for a new survivor and take alot of time to get to the point where you can be reasonably confident that your needs are met.

 

also our definition of 'kitted out' might be a bit different. remember that in dayZ a good 70% of winning a gunfight is landing the first shot before the other guy knows he being stalked.a pistol or a blaze is a perfectly valid weapon for 'defense' 'armed' to me = any firearm and a few rounds for it. Kitted out = all the best stuff. high capacity clothing, pack, military weapons complete with attachments, etc. a weapon and a few bullets should be very doable withing a few sessions. having full mil-spec gear and all the attachments to go with and enough ammo to not be counting loose rounds.. THAT should be the territory of characters like yours that has lived for over 100Hrs of actual play. many many sessions, chopper crashes searched, etc

[vfxtodd 123]

i don't care about KOS. it always has been and always will be there. PvP should not be the guiding purpose of development. dayZ is a survival game that leans more towards simulation. This is coming from a PvP player mind you. I have never and will never play 'berry picking simulator'- but i dont want to have all the best stuff in just 1 or 2 sessions. i want to have one character 2,3 6 weeks later and still have stuff im 'working on' rather that's end-game content like bases and farming or top tier weapons and kit for them. I should Never be in a position to take resources for granted. ever.

 

I don't want to penalize any one play style. you have as much chance of finding the bullets as the next guy. that said simply not being in fear of starvation or the elements should be priority #1 for a new survivor and take alot of time to get to the point where you can be reasonably confident that your needs are met.

 

also our definition of 'kitted out' might be a bit different. remember that in dayZ a good 70% of winning a gunfight is landing the first shot before the other guy knows he being stalked.a pistol or a blaze is a perfectly valid weapon for 'defense' 'armed' to me = any firearm and a few rounds for it. Kitted out = all the best stuff. high capacity clothing, pack, military weapons complete with attachments, etc. a weapon and a few bullets should be very doable withing a few sessions. having full mil-spec gear and all the attachments to go with and enough ammo to not be counting loose rounds.. THAT should be the territory of characters like yours that has lived for over 100Hrs of actual play. many many sessions, chopper crashes searched, etc

As pointed out in another thread, the most fair approach to loot and defense is to everything - food, tools, weapons, ammo - spawn randomly around the whole map. There's no need to make anything "rare". Making any one type of item/loot "rare" will remove balance from DayZ.

It's a simple solution that respects all play styles. Saying that you're all for supporting all play styles while suggesting a feature that would punish certain play styles isn't supportive at all.

Last night I was KOS'd twice. Once from someone who chased me down and killed me despite the fact I was trying to avoid confrontation with anyone. I was armed. But I'm not a KOS player. Although there are times I want to KOS to get back at someone who killed me. The second time I was killed was by a group of FOUR players who chased me down. I was a fresh spawn and unarmed. They told me they wouldn't kill me if I stopped running away. I was a fresh spawn, so I told them to go ahead and kill me. They killed me despite their own claims of not planning to.

If DayZ is developed with rare ammo and weapons this is what DayZ will become. A KOS paradise. This is where randomly spawning ammo and weapons around the map will balance the game. Then I'll have a chance to defend myself against KOS losers.

[xalienax 621]

As pointed out in another thread, the most fair approach to loot and defense is to everything - food, tools, weapons, ammo - spawn randomly around the whole map. There's no need to make anything "rare". Making any one type of item/loot "rare" will remove balance from DayZ.

It's a simple solution that respects all play styles. Saying that you're all for supporting all play styles while suggesting a feature that would punish certain play styles isn't supportive at all.

Last night I was KOS'd twice. Once from someone who chased me down and killed me despite the fact I was trying to avoid confrontation with anyone. I was armed. But I'm not a KOS player. Although there are times I want to KOS to get back at someone who killed me. The second time I was killed was by a group of FOUR players who chased me down. I was a fresh spawn and unarmed. They told me they wouldn't kill me if I stopped running away. I was a fresh spawn, so I told them to go ahead and kill me. They killed me despite their own claims of not planning to.

If DayZ is developed with rare ammo and weapons this is what DayZ will become. A KOS paradise. This is where randomly spawning ammo and weapons around the map will balance the game. Then I'll have a chance to defend myself against KOS losers.

I agree with the dispersion of loot 100%. it also stops folks from being able to reliably 'exploit' known 'prime loot' spots by server hoping or such. that said,  I think there should be considerably less then there is now (which unless i missed something is just basically pre-global loot amounts). Again KOS is and always will be there. imho it makes the game interesting. it brings the risk factor up ten notches. 

 

My most memorable moment in SA was running to berezino starving. i make it into town without pulling any aggro- then as i get to the market i hear some talking followed by a hail of gunfire. ill equipped for combat i had no choice but to quietly flee the area. later finding a can opener saved my life (bear in mind at this time many things now usable couldn't open cans). those decisions.. those moments. having to either try to negotiate with these people that presumably just murdered someone- or take my chances rummaging through houses in the dark with little time left to spare. imho that's the core of dayZ. every choice, ever decision, could be your last.

 

One of the reasons i hated mods like over-watch is that abundance marginalizes time investment and thus the RISK. 2017 was probably the best community mod for dayZ. reduced loot then they pile ontop cold climate can kill you too! was it ever as popular as easy mode mods? of course not but it was by FAR the most exciting. even some early epoch servers (before all the doner pack madness and uber military gear became the norm). spending weeks on your squads base. all that time and effort invested then you end up sparking a rivalry with another squad/clan and it's all on the line. if you can respawn and be back to your previous status within a few hrs of play none of it really matters anymore. the risk is lowered. the excitement of possibly completely loosing hundreds of hours of progress is lost if there is no real progress after the first 10 hrs.

[dashender7 78]

If we get rid of most of the guns, nobody will get shot anymore. That's how we (the US) stopped everyone from doing drugs.. :rolleyes:

 

See how stupid that sounds? This entire thread is a parrot of the real life gun control debate we constantly have in the US. It always boils down to Those with guns have power over those without.

 

Complaining about KoS is pointless, because thankfully the game isn't the way a few of you want it to be. Most of us are very happy with the current balance of power, and enjoy it. There are multiple play styles. The reason I enjoy this game so much is because it is the closest thing I have found in a video game that can recreate the feeling of fear I that crave. Go someplace shitty in the world for some period of time, and you too will understand this feeling - and rush.

 

If you want to run around gunless and naked, have fun. Do whatever you want, it's your game. Arguing opinion is pointless. I'll keep on keeping on, and enjoy my long lived (and very well armed) characters.

 

Sorry man your comparison of the debate we're having here to the real life gun control debate just does not stand up.

 

It's so completely different that it's nearly impossible to compare, let alone reconcile, the two things and say they are the same.

 

Think about it - we're not comparing apples to apples in terms of the two situations with only one control variable as your premise implies.

 

In the real life gun control debate, regardless of the side you're on, you have to recognize that the circumstances and scenario are as follows:  we are debating the effect of readily available legally owned firearms within a population that is largely controlled, policed and amicable to a relatively effective degree (i.e. there is a high degree of law and order, at least as compared to the vast witness of the history of civilization).  Add to that not only is this society relatively amicable and well policed, most people have at least what they need for basic survival and do not directly face the need to kill for sheer basic survival.

 

DayZ is a lawless post-apocalyptic state.  Guns are obtained by finding or by force.  There is no legal or illegal. 

 

That is where the validity of rampant or common killing comes in.  We would all agree I'm sure that in some form, given the breakdown of society and total absence of law and order and authority, killing for survival would be much higher.  That is not debatable in terms of realism. We see that in the present and in history.

 

DayZ does need KOS - there are not many who debate that.

 

But here's where things really divert:  DayZ is a VIDEO GAME.  That's the crux so to speak.

 

Some of us here want every video game to be pretty much the same - give us unrealistically available guns and ammo - i.e. you can expect to find yourself something to shoot with within minutes or maybe an hour or two max, and then let us do whatever we want with no balancing.

 

Others of us want the game itself, and it's mechanics, to import some semblance of counter balancing to the fact that it is indeed a VIDEO GAME where we always tend to spiral into PvP killing competition for lols and entertainment at an unrealistic level.  Since it is a video game where you feel nothing close to realistic remorse or moral objection to slaughtering human beings, and where the prospect of your own death due to spending your time "hunting" other players is no big deal, we want the game to import mechanics that place some discouragements to the "gear up, PvP, die, repeat" cycle.  We want this so that there is a prospect of encountering some sort of interesting gamut of human interaction beyond the normally insane level of KOS PVP'ing that happens due to so many players approaching it as another PvP oriented player kill game.

 

History shows that while times of lawlessness are indeed violent and brutal, human beings always also have a tendency, in the aggregate, to move toward and seek a rebuilding of some kind of order, structure, justice, and society, and are quite likely to band together to help each other, especially when it profits them. Constantly seeking life threatening shootouts because there is nothing else to do is the part that seems divergent from realism.  The game must be too easy if so many players have the energy and time to gear up and KOS.

 

On the other hand, killing another player because it is the safest thing for you at the moment seems totally valid.

[capt. beefsteak 95]

Well this guy wanted to kos... so ... I don't run with my gun out ever because I've noticed that that's what the KOS types do and I don't want to appear hostile... I did take it out for this guy though. I left him this to come back to, I aslo hid his gun...

 

...

Edited June 21, 2015 by Deepfryer

[dashender7 78]

…and he fell right upon the road.

 

A justified killing as defined by your signature? Some kill in online games for the challenge. Plain 'ol PvP. That's one thing.

 

Others, however...

 

Interestingly the gaming community and online communities in general, have been getting attention from some scholarly studies in psychology.

 

Several studies recently have highlighted sharp and alarming correlations between those who derive pleasure from causing distress and loss to others in MMO type online gaming environments and the presence of what are known to psychologists as the "dark tetrad" of personality disorders - sadism, narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.  

 

These are the kinds of personality disorders present in the worst kinds of people like serial killers and despots, for example.  Basically, in a nutshell, they all boil down to this: people who, when given power over another person, are likely to exploit that power in a self-serving way, often violently, with callous disregard for the other and often even with pleasure in the other's pain. They often seek out environments or situations in which they can express these urges.

 

Researchers are seeing that MMO gaming environments, while of course populated by many normal healthy individuals not expressing these personality disorders who are drawn to the games for other reasons, at the same time draw a disproportionate portion of society's "dark tetrad" personalities - those seeking an environment to express their urges without repercussion or consequence, where they can in a way "live out" their fantasies of having and exploiting this type of visceral power over others and derive satisfaction from it.

 

This of course certainly isn't saying that people who seek PvP have personality disorders - the psychologists seem to draw a sharp distinction in the motivations and the reasoning and outflow of the action it seems. We would be talking about the KOSing player who enjoys the frustration or loss they might cause to the other player, and especially, the griefer or troll who goes the extra mile to cause emotional distress to their online prey. We would especially be talking about those who prey on the "weak."

 

There is a growing awareness that the way people choose to behave in online environments, especially a sandbox MMO type environment where "anything goes", is truly an expression of their inner character given circumstances where societal norms and consequences are removed.  This person deriving enjoyment from causing real distress to a real person, and reveling in the power they hold over that person at that moment to do that, is in effect showing just that - exactly what they'd do given removed outside repercussions. Think of it as an expression of how this person might actually act given an environment where you remove consequences to their actions and where causing harm to others, and perhaps even enjoying it, could possibly go unpunished. (As is often the illusion for a person in real life when they hold a position of power and safety over others who they can use to their own ends - i.e. a pack of armed men coming across an unarmed woman in the middle of nowhere in a place where there is no law and order, or a politically powerful despot, or even an abusive spouse.)

 

Basically, what a person actually enjoys doing in an online environment (which although not a physical environment is still a real life environment - a forum of real interaction with the extensions of other people's real emotions and personalities) to another real person (albeit somewhat removed by cyberspace), is of course an actual reflection on what that person enjoys and thus who they are.

 

So for someone to say "I enjoy and derive pleasure from the frustration and loss I cause to others when I kill them and take their stuff in an online game, but in 'real life' I'm actually a good person who would never hurt anyone for fun or just because I can no matter the situation" is getting called out for the nonsensical and ridiculous B.S. it is and always has been.

 

All that to say, there are some real lines psychologists draw in motivations for actions.

 

For example, in an MMO environment, being shot at first and threatened, then engaging and killing another player, I would imagine, would be handled in terms of our healthy human regard for justice and personal survival - of self defense, and even deriving some satisfaction from that other player's demise might be seen from the lens of justice.  But I'm just guessing there.

 

Interesting stuff with regards to the KOS debate.  Motivations.  Are you expressing your personality disorder, or are you just looking for a challenge and a story?

 

I'd imagine this research ain't popular with a portion of the crowd around here. And yes, once again we're talking peer reviewed scholarly studies. Search it out if interested, quite an interesting read.

Edited June 21, 2015 by dashender7

[JohnMcClane 19]

…and he fell right upon the road.

 

A justified killing as defined by your signature? Some kill in online games for the challenge. Plain 'ol PvP. That's one thing.

 

Others, however...

 

Interestingly the gaming community and online communities in general, have been getting attention from some scholarly studies in psychology.

 

Several studies recently have highlighted sharp and alarming correlations between those who derive pleasure from causing distress and loss to others in MMO type online gaming environments and the presence of what are known to psychologists as the "dark tetrad" of personality disorders - sadism, narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.  

 

These are the kinds of personality disorders present in the worst kinds of people like serial killers and despots, for example.  Basically, in a nutshell, they all boil down to this: people who, when given power over another person, are likely to exploit that power in a self-serving way, often violently, with callous disregard for the other and often even with pleasure in the other's pain. They often seek out environments or situations in which they can express these urges.

 

Researchers are seeing that MMO gaming environments, while of course populated by many normal healthy individuals not expressing these personality disorders who are drawn to the games for other reasons, at the same time draw a disproportionate portion of society's "dark tetrad" personalities - those seeking an environment to express their urges without repercussion or consequence, where they can in a way "live out" their fantasies of having and exploiting this type of visceral power over others and derive satisfaction from it.

 

This of course certainly isn't saying that people who seek PvP have personality disorders - the psychologists seem to draw a sharp distinction in the motivations and the reasoning and outflow of the action it seems. We would be talking about the KOSing player who enjoys the frustration or loss they might cause to the other player, and especially, the griefer or troll who goes the extra mile to cause emotional distress to their online prey. We would especially be talking about those who prey on the "weak."

 

There is a growing awareness that the way people choose to behave in online environments, especially a sandbox MMO type environment where "anything goes", is truly an expression of their inner character given circumstances where societal norms and consequences are removed.  This person deriving enjoyment from causing real distress to a real person, and reveling in the power they hold over that person at that moment to do that, is in effect showing just that - exactly what they'd do given removed outside repercussions. Think of it as an expression of how this person might actually act given an environment where you remove consequences to their actions and where causing harm to others, and perhaps even enjoying it, could possibly go unpunished. (As is often the illusion for a person in real life when they hold a position of power and safety over others who they can use to their own ends - i.e. a pack of armed men coming across an unarmed woman in the middle of nowhere in a place where there is no law and order, or a politically powerful despot, or even an abusive spouse.)

 

Basically, what a person actually enjoys doing in an online environment (which although not a physical environment is still a real life environment - a forum of real interaction with the extensions of other people's real emotions and personalities) to another real person (albeit somewhat removed by cyberspace), is of course an actual reflection on what that person enjoys and thus who they are.

 

So for someone to say "I enjoy and derive pleasure from the frustration and loss I cause to others when I kill them and take their stuff in an online game, but in 'real life' I'm actually a good person who would never hurt anyone for fun or just because I can no matter the situation" is getting called out for the nonsensical and ridiculous B.S. it is and always has been.

 

All that to say, there are some real lines psychologists draw in motivations for actions.

 

For example, in an MMO environment, being shot at first and threatened, then engaging and killing another player, I would imagine, would be handled in terms of our healthy human regard for justice and personal survival - of self defense, and even deriving some satisfaction from that other player's demise might be seen from the lens of justice.  But I'm just guessing there.

 

Interesting stuff with regards to the KOS debate.  Motivations.  Are you expressing your personality disorder, or are you just looking for a challenge and a story?

 

I'd imagine this research ain't popular with a portion of the crowd around here. And yes, once again we're talking peer reviewed scholarly studies. Search it out if interested, quite an interesting read.

Hey 3PO,

 

nobody cares. It's a video game, one where you can do whatever you want. Get over it.

[emuthreat 2837]

Hey 3PO,

 

nobody cares. It's a video game, one where you can do whatever you want. Get over it.

Some people care, and are interested in the sociological implications of video game behavior.  You obviously do not care.  I humbly invite you to recuse yourself from this discussion, and if applicable, the voter-base in whatever place you live.