Day Z as it should be : The Earth Abides

[MrAerospace 87]

What we players see for the moment is a lot of the PvP assets being pushed into the game. I assume it's because it's an already well established area of development, meaning that it takes hardly any resources to implement items and weapons into the stable branch. While the community sees this and draws their own conclusions from it (PvP'ers are rejoicing, while survivalists despair), there's a ton of programming going on behind the scenes, which unfortunately takes programmers away from developing the more complex areas, such as survival.

-*--%

No, shut up all you crybaby weakling survivalist tree hugging hippies. Survival isn't about staying alive, it's about the guy who is fastest at blowing his load...of ammo...into the face of other players. I just wanna be the guy with the biggest d...erringer. Give me all the guns and all the ammo, and we'll see just how strong community, cholera and cold weather really are when I shoot them all in the face, and then repetitively spawn kill them until they go away and leave my definition of fun alone. I mean come on, you can't tell me DayZ isn't fun for you when I'm not killing you. What do you want meaningful objectives for anyway? They're just a means to your end at my hands. Nothing will threaten my manhood...AAARRRRRGGGG!

-#-^-

 

Wow, that's a pretty darn good parallel you make right there, pilgrim. But, let's hope the community are just in hiding while the anti-socialists have their day. The day will come when we'll get a server wipe that will decidedly put us all on a level playing field where no one seems to have ammo, and mindless aggression gets you eaten first.

 

I have to disagree with your third point though. 'Wilderness' doesn't need to be large to be effective, it just needs to be secluded. Right now, with how open forests are and zero restrictions for movement or line of sight, the only way to do that is with vast areas.  I've camped in outback Australia and in a tiny forest plot in rural Normandy, and I felt more secluded in a tiny 50m x 50m plot than I did literally 1000's of miles away from civilization. This is the kind of thing DayZ needs to replicate; thousands of small pockets of secluded forestry.

[Bororm 1156]

Even without ammo people will just melee each other.  And it will be even more boring honestly, because as many faults as the shooting has the melee system is far worse and Hicks has said they're pretty much done touching it.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Even without ammo people will just melee each other.  And it will be even more boring honestly, because as many faults as the shooting has the melee system is far worse and Hicks has said they're pretty much done touching it.

 

Even if firearm bullets never respawn (which, sadly, I never see happening), there are still bows and crossbows. When modding comes around, I will learn how to implement a sling, which would use the "small stones" you can literally find anywhere.

 

You don't have any excuse not to have some sort of ranged weapon.

[Bororm 1156]

My point is that people keep saying with lower ammo or food or whatever people will be less likely to shoot/kill each other.  It's not the case, people will always find the easiest means to kill each other and do it.

 

The idea of making ammo rare so you have to "make a decision on whether to shoot a player or not" is naive.  If I have bullets, and I see another player, even if I have 1 bullet, I'm gonna shoot it at him.  Why wouldn't I?

[Whyherro123 2283]

My point is that people keep saying with lower ammo or food or whatever people will be less likely to shoot/kill each other.  It's not the case, people will always find the easiest means to kill each other and do it.

 

The idea of making ammo rare so you have to "make a decision on whether to shoot a player or not" is naive.  If I have bullets, and I see another player, even if I have 1 bullet, I'm gonna shoot it at him.  Why wouldn't I?

 

Then chances are you just wasted your bullet. You might have needed that bullet later, to shoot an animal or to kill a zombie. And, depending on where you hit, you likely destroyed everything they had on them in that spot.

 

This is something I don't understand why other people don't understand: if loot becomes rare (actually "rare", not just "find it in the next town" rare), the chances of getting what you need off a KoS-player is less, not higher. Sure, food is food, and one can is as good as another (until it gets destroyed via bullet), but bullets? With the sheer number of calibers there are in the game, if they become rarer, the chances of finding them via looting becomes less, and thusly, the chances of getting bullets to replace the one you just shot become lower. And, with the number of bullets required to kill a player lately, chances are it won't be "one shot, one kill". They will survive and run off, and you just wasted the bullet. 

 

If you have a Mosin, 9mm isn't worth jack-shit to you as a survivor. In fact, ammunition in a caliber you don't have takes up valuable space and weight. I cannot wait until the weight system gets implemented, the days of sprinting around with 5 different ammunition types in your backpack will be over.

 

Arrows? I can make arrows. Until a bullet press and reloading supplies get implemented, you can't just "make" bullets.

[Kirby12352 67]

My point is that people keep saying with lower ammo or food or whatever people will be less likely to shoot/kill each other.  It's not the case, people will always find the easiest means to kill each other and do it.

 

The idea of making ammo rare so you have to "make a decision on whether to shoot a player or not" is naive.  If I have bullets, and I see another player, even if I have 1 bullet, I'm gonna shoot it at him.  Why wouldn't I?

 

 

Guns are used at a distance, and the person firing is usually hidden, and the person who is being shot at is often clueless to the fact that they're in someone's crosshair. If people were more likely to use melee weapons, that levels the playing field a bit, and people might not be quite so anxious to kill each other. However, as you said, chances are if they're planning on killing someone, they'll do so, whether it be with an axe, bow and arrow, or gun.

[Bororm 1156]

Then chances are you just wasted your bullet. You might have needed that bullet later, to shoot an animal or to kill a zombie. And, depending on where you hit, you likely destroyed everything they had on them in that spot.

 

This is something I don't understand why other people don't understand: if loot becomes rare (actually "rare", not just "find it in the next town" rare), the chances of getting what you need off a KoS-player is less, not higher. Sure, food is food, and one can is as good as another (until it gets destroyed via bullet), but bullets? With the sheer number of calibers there are in the game, if they become rarer, the chances of finding them via looting becomes less, and thusly, the chances of getting bullets to replace the one you just shot become lower. And, with the number of bullets required to kill a player lately, chances are it won't be "one shot, one kill". They will survive and run off, and you just wasted the bullet. 

 

If you have a Mosin, 9mm isn't worth jack-shit to you as a survivor. In fact, ammunition in a caliber you don't have takes up valuable space and weight. I cannot wait until the weight system gets implemented, the days of sprinting around with 5 different ammunition types in your backpack will be over.

 

Arrows? I can make arrows. Until a bullet press and reloading supplies get implemented, you can't just "make" bullets.

 

The problem is you think people pvp for a reason.  I didn't waste my bullet because my purpose in playing the game is to try to kill other players.  Even if that player gets away, or doesn't have what I want, that doesn't matter to me.  I don't kill other players for their loot, I do it for fun.  And I'm always going to find a way to do that, and the more tedious you make the game the more ways I'm going to find to exploit that tedium in my favor to kill other players.  As long as pvp is allowed people are going to find the easiest way to do it.

 

And that's the mindset of a lot of people who play DayZ.  That is what makes the game popular to begin with.  And before anyone tries to tell me otherwise, do you think those roving groups of 3-4 decked out players in every coastal city on every populated server are there killing people for loot or some higher purpose?

 

 

 

Guns are used at a distance, and the person firing is usually hidden, and the person who is being shot at is often clueless to the fact that they're in someone's crosshair. If people were more likely to use melee weapons, that levels the playing field a bit, and people might not be quite so anxious to kill each other. However, as you said, chances are if they're planning on killing someone, they'll do so, whether it be with an axe, bow and arrow, or gun.

 

That's maybe true when you're new, but you quickly learn to play under the assumption that you're pretty much always under some one's crosshairs.  Or at least, you learn where it's mostly to happen and from where.  It doesn't level the playing field, it just changes the tactics.

 

You're still going to have some guy hiding around a corner with a fireaxe now instead of an SMG, waiting to bop you over the head when you go to pick your apples or whatever.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Bororm

[Noctoras 409]

 

And before anyone tries to tell me otherwise, do you think those roving groups of 3-4 decked out players in every coastal city on every populated server are there killing people for loot or some higher purpose?.

 

 

No, they are the reason that there are ever less populated servers in the list and you will see this trend continue. A walking simulator with attached boomboom will only get you so far.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Noctoras

[scriptfactory 620]

No, they are the reason that there are ever less populated servers in the list and you will see this trend continue. A walking simulator with attached boomboom will only get you so far.

The servers are empty for a few different reasons. The game isn't accessible to newer players, the "Arma"-esque performance, the development process isn't communicated transparently and regularly, the lack of game depth and motivators, etc.

I do agree that the DayZ SA KoS culture is probably one of the reasons less aggressive players avoid the game. Compare DayZ to ARK (which boasts a larger active playerbase than GTA 5) and you will find a probable answer to the low player count; multiple game modes and/or modding support.

[Bororm 1156]

No, they are the reason that there are ever less populated servers in the list and you will see this trend continue. A walking simulator with attached boomboom will only get you so far.

 

The game has been popular for going on 4 years now.

[Noctoras 409]

The game has been popular for going on 4 years now.

 

yep, numbers dwindled only by a rough 2/3 and the above mentioned ARK peaked double the number DayZ ever had.

 

Time will tell, Server pops will show. I will get back to you with that argument at a later stage.

[Noctoras 409]

I do agree that the DayZ SA KoS culture is probably one of the reasons less aggressive players avoid the game. Compare DayZ to ARK (which boasts a larger active playerbase than GTA 5) and you will find a probable answer to the low player count; multiple game modes and/or modding support.

 

It's not the KOS culture. This "culture" is the direct result of the game offering nothing else to do. This has got nothing to do with aggressiveness. Let's see, if these coolio gangs will still be around sniping freshspawns in 6 months to come. I doubt motivation will last that long.

 

You are right on this game lacking content and incentives - There is no point in anything but PvP and a can of beans inbetween. Should I go farming for the sake of it, if I need to walk roughly 45 seconds for the next can of bacon? And since zombies are gone, what are you supposed to do?

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

If I have bullets, and I see another player, even if I have 1 bullet, I'm gonna shoot it at him.  Why wouldn't I?

If the risk outweighed the reward, you wouldn't. If, whilst in a town, you knew that making any noise louder than a mouse fart was going to was going to attract a crowd of fleshy Terminators all eager to punch, scratch, bite and claw you to a pile of rags and giblets, you wouldn't.

I want the infected back. In swarms. Turned up to 11.

[Bororm 1156]

If the risk outweighed the reward, you wouldn't. If, whilst in a town, you knew that making any noise louder than a mouse fart was going to was going to attract a crowd of fleshy Terminators all eager to punch, scratch, bite and claw you to a pile of rags and giblets, you wouldn't.

I want the infected back. In swarms. Turned up to 11.

Except I would.  Or else I would just get near the guy and do it, and use it to train the zombies on them.

[scriptfactory 620]

If the risk outweighed the reward, you wouldn't.

ARK has the strongest AI out there and KoS is still pretty common. I haven't played it in a while but Project Zomboid, the only multiplayer zombie game with legit hordes, had a crazy KoS problem on most PvP servers.

Try playing a roguelike. Permadeath means nothing.

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

I would love it if ammo were ridiculously hard to find. I heard some time back that they were talking about possibly implementing wild horses that you could tame. Once the crafting system really gets going, that'll be amazing. Craft me a leather horse saddle from less obedient horses, build me some full-body armour out of welded car doors and chain-link fencing, leather armour for my horse (again made from the less obedient horses) cut down a tree and make me a steel-pointed lance.

 

I'll be the fucking medieval terminator knight of Chernarus, roaming all across the map charging down whoever I find, skewering them and laughing all the while. I'll trot from forest base to forest base, proclaim myself the Almighty Terror of the Coast of Chernarus, and extort these petty villages for food, supplies, and any items of worth. All who oppose me will be ridden down like dogs. But I will be just, as well: those who support me will become my favoured squires. One day, I will forge the entire Chernarussian wasteland into a crude despotism, ruled only with fear and my iron-shod fist. Hopefully the melee system will be better by then.

 

Let my peasants quail. Let them condemn my actions, if they dare. Let me strike them down in glorious single combat and cow the survivors, bend them to my will. Let me pillage and slay those who resist, let me become King of the Wastes.

 

No matter how hard you make it to find ammo, I bet someone will go find it to kill me by then, even if only for the psychological shift that'll hit the server once they realize I can be defeated. Never say that making this game a truly hardcore survival game will stop people from playing it. There will always be motivation to do things in this game, even if we as a community must do the heavy lifting in finding them.

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

Except I would.

Fair enough.

BTW, I have your perfect game right here. You'll need 2 pieces of plain card, a pen (or crayon) and a hat.

1. On the first card, write "me" on one side and "other guy" on the reverse.

2. On the second card, write "dead" on one side and "alive on the reverse.

3. Put both cards in the hat, close your eyes and give a gentle shake.

4. Empty out the cards onto a table and open your eyes.

5. Read the cards.

6. Repeat from 3 ad infinitum.

 

[Bororm 1156]

Fair enough.

BTW, I have your perfect game right here. You'll need 2 pieces of plain card, a pen (or crayon) and a hat.

1. On the first card, write "me" on one side and "other guy" on the reverse.

2. On the second card, write "dead" on one side and "alive on the reverse.

3. Put both cards in the hat, close your eyes and give a gentle shake.

4. Empty out the cards onto a table and open your eyes.

5. Read the cards.

6. Repeat from 3 ad infinitum.

 

 

One of the big reasons pvp is attractive in DayZ is because there is still consequence for death, regardless of whether some people think it's easy or not.  I'm not attached to my gear, and I usually use "civilian" weapons, but it still takes me any where from 15-30+ minutes to gear up and I'd reckon it's at least that if not more for most people.  Then all the other time investments that go into the game, between travelling, getting a good spawn, meeting with friends, and yes even surviving the pve elements.

 

All of it, regardless of how much effort you want to put into it, still means some one is going to lose something.

 

 

It's a bit funny because the game you seem to want to play could be represented by removing "other guy" from the card.  And as boring as the one you suggest for me sounds, that sounds doubly so.

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

It's a bit funny because the game you seem to want to play could be represented by removing "other guy" from the card.

 

My preferred game would also have a live snake in the hat (with a random chance of it being venomous).

[darkrider400 76]

We need to be able to barricade towns and create communities. We need to have seasons, so in deep apocalyptic winters we need to work together to stay warm and caravans (traders groups) will have to go and loot unused towns, trade with towns, or raid other towns. This game needs to promote more teamwork and not have an obvious endgame. Currently once you get the gun you want and clothes you want, thats it, you're done, endgame.