Unless we get flags/effects for murder, this game will just be Deathmatch.

[KWilt 157]

So what does that have to do with me forcing people to switch to their flashlight?

in the current system' date=' you'd never get close enough to tell them to switch. You would already be dead or have killed them. its shoot on sight remember?

[/quote']

Uh... no, I-I can pretty much get close enough to somebody to tell them that if they're not paying attention. 80m is short, but if I've got my rifle trained on them, they'll either listen or die. [by the way, since you ignored it last time, please answer this post.] Or get lucky and shoot me first. But that's my fault for not being behind them.

So... again. Not sure why this is in favor of your system. In both systems, the majority of the time, they're gonna come out of it with no items, either robbed or dead. If a bandit wants your items, I'm quite sure they have no problem with getting a bandit skin. Which I wouldn't.

You seemed to have missed that my whole argument here has been for Survivors who accidentally get the bandit skin one way or another, or that fact that bandits instantly become 'shoot on sight' pretty much solving nothing.

[PinkTaco24 10]

So... again. Not sure why this is in favor of your system. In both systems' date=' the majority of the time, they're gonna come out of it with no items, either robbed or dead. If a bandit wants your items, I'm quite sure they have no problem with getting a bandit skin. Which I wouldn't.

[/quote']

the purpose of the system isn't to stop people who WANT a bandit skin from getting one.

I don't know why you are making that assumption.

and i already answered that post a ways back.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

openly admitting to 'killing idiots because they are idiots.' care to try again?

He said that' date=' not me. Just because I like the way he thinks about the game mechanics and rules doesn't mean I play the game the way he does.

I realize you're new to the forums and maybe haven't read many of my posts. That's okay. Let me restate: I've killed ~10 people in the last 55 days, mostly for shooting at me or trying to steal my things.

So, no. I don't need to try again.

all you got is semantic arguments now?

No, I still have all the other arguments I made and you failed to counter. Those, too.

[KWilt 157]

So... again. Not sure why this is in favor of your system. In both systems' date=' the majority of the time, they're gonna come out of it with no items, either robbed or dead. If a bandit wants your items, I'm quite sure they have no problem with getting a bandit skin. Which I wouldn't.

[/quote']

the purpose of the system isn't to stop people who WANT a bandit skin from getting one.

I don't know why you are making that assumption.

and i already answered that post a ways back.

Then please give me a link to the response to that post, because never saw it.

[PinkTaco24 10]

So... again. Not sure why this is in favor of your system. In both systems' date=' the majority of the time, they're gonna come out of it with no items, either robbed or dead. If a bandit wants your items, I'm quite sure they have no problem with getting a bandit skin. Which I wouldn't.

[/quote']

the purpose of the system isn't to stop people who WANT a bandit skin from getting one.

I don't know why you are making that assumption.

and i already answered that post a ways back.

Then please give me a link to the response to that post, because never saw it.

its like 2 posts down..

[KWilt 157]

So... again. Not sure why this is in favor of your system. In both systems' date=' the majority of the time, they're gonna come out of it with no items, either robbed or dead. If a bandit wants your items, I'm quite sure they have no problem with getting a bandit skin. Which I wouldn't.

[/quote']

the purpose of the system isn't to stop people who WANT a bandit skin from getting one.

I don't know why you are making that assumption.

and i already answered that post a ways back.

Then please give me a link to the response to that post, because never saw it.

its like 2 posts down..

Oh. Now I'm seeing it. My bad.

So why is realism important in one thread and not another, since you never answered that.

[PinkTaco24 10]

I did answer it.

In all design in video games, there are realistic mechanics and there are core gameplay mechanics.

starting without a weapon = realism.

players running around like a deathmatch FPS goes against(what i assume) is core design.

i proposed a system to bring things back to how they are intended.

if a deathmatch system is what they want, then so be it. (i clearly outlined that in the OP) If not, then i suggested a change to fix it.

and then all of you carebears got butthurt for being flagged criminal/murderer/bandit.

[KWilt 157]

and then all of you carebears got butthurt for being flagged criminal/murderer/bandit.

Whoa. Hold up skippy. Fact check. Now I know you're not reading posts.

[doitonlan 0]

Perhaps you weren't the first to insult anyone here, but you are extending to people that have done you no wrong. In your flagging instance you would be a top class bandit who has wronged many people because he is getting worked up on the forum.

If you are having to repeat your statements many times to different people there may be a flaw in your statements. Take some time and actually refute it rather than use a preconceived statement and pat yourself on the back for defeating them.

Honestly, I think your problem is that you are trying to win the argument regardless of whether it is right or wrong; you are giving no consideration to what anyone else is saying and that is what gives you the superiority complex. I find that quite a few of them suffer from it as well, but you are purposely seeking them out and trying to beat them through ad hominem attacks and insults.

I do respect that you actually took the time to respond to me, so I'll give you my view on the issue. Considering how easy zombies are to dispose of and that supplies continually respawn, we would have no problem with survival if we worked together. The problem that has been created by dayz is that there is an inordinate amount of weapons available to people who have varying degrees of morality when it comes to other players. Over time, this has deteriorated to the point where chancing an encounter with someone unknown is too dangerous because with the weaponry it can be kill or be killed (even at 800-1200m).

It is correct to say that the lawlessness in the environment has made the lands an essential deathmatch, and what you are trying to bring up is a system that governs in some way. The thing with the environment that has been created is that our police force, military, and rules of morality have been eliminated or have deteriorated. By pleading to make a game mechanic change it is similar to pleading to GOD or a god of some sort to make an alteration to life to make it more fair (which if you are trying to play the game like a realistic post-apocalyptic scenario you are attempting to make it more non-realistic).

I know this is contradictory, but some things should be left up to the game creators like bugs, errors, and other technical problems. Other things like this feel more like physical limitations or laws that bind us. It would be like asking the "creators of our existence" to change gravity so it doesn't hurt when we fall down. The realism to the game is spawned from the lack of control, and that we are simply put in a situation where there are zombies, bandits, and a lack of resources.

Now this is specific to the change you requested: adding something that changes your appearance or that magically flags you will drastically affect the realism to the scenario that we are playing in. I am in no way saying that this is ultimately a perfect product or that it should be changed to add more realism at this point; I am simply pointing out that this opens up not only for a slew of potential changes to be implemented that take away from the experience, but is in itself a reminder that something is there "watching", when the game is trying to make you feel more alone and have to struggle to survive.

The sense that it is turning in to a deathmatch is more or less a mute point. It is what it is. In addition, even as a deathmatch the game is spread so thin over the area of the map that in most situations it is like starting fresh, rather than feeling like its "round 2".

Please ask if you wish me to clarify anything. Do note Pink that if you speak crudely to me I will not respond to you again.

[PinkTaco24 10]

and then all of you carebears got butthurt for being flagged criminal/murderer/bandit.

Whoa. Hold up skippy. Fact check. Now I know you're not reading posts.

No I am. I'm simply reading between the lines.

Think about it..

if everything is kill on sight as it is, or everything has literally no consequence to shooting other survivors.. what actual difference does my change make?

Not one..

Except that people who kill people consistently become visually flagged as someone who kills people.

But in the current state.. EVERYONE is pretty much flagged as someone that kills people. (because there is no way to distinguish them)

So in reality.. who would actually argue against this change? People that kill others and want it to continue to be easy. The ones afraid of being marked criminal.

Carebears too afraid to be marked for what they are. The little girls that have to attack and snipe from the shadows and guise of possible friendship.

My change threatens the carebears abilities to get easy and free kills. They don't like that.

[Swineflew 480]

Page 19. You guys need to stop feeding the troll.

[preka 0]

I did answer it.

In all design in video games' date=' there are realistic mechanics and there are core gameplay mechanics.

starting without a weapon = realism.

players running around like a deathmatch FPS goes against(what i assume) is core design.

[/quote']

This seems a rather arbitrary distinction, and is clearly just a flimsy excuse you're using to justify the internal contradictions in your own position.

[KWilt 157]

and then all of you carebears got butthurt for being flagged criminal/murderer/bandit.

Whoa. Hold up skippy. Fact check. Now I know you're not reading posts.

No I am. I'm simply reading between the lines.

No. Nope. Pretty sure you're not reading. Because I explicitly said I didn't care if I was flagged as a bandit.

Simple as that. Nothing hidden there. In fact, hell, I gave you the reasons why I'm against this idea. Yet, you care little if innocents are caught in the crossfire. So... yeah. There's that.

[PinkTaco24 10]

Perhaps you weren't the first to insult anyone here' date=' but you are extending to people that have done you no wrong. In your flagging instance you would be a top class bandit who has wronged many people because he is getting worked up on the forum.

If you are having to repeat your statements many times to different people there may be a flaw in your statements. Take some time and actually refute it rather than use a preconceived statement and pat yourself on the back for defeating them.[/quote'] no, its simply that people don't read the entire thread and keep posting the same stupid arguments.

Honestly' date=' I think your problem is that you are trying to win the argument regardless of whether it is right or wrong; you are giving no consideration to what anyone else is saying and that is what gives you the superiority complex. I find that quite a few of them suffer from it as well, but you are purposely seeking them out and trying to beat them through ad hominem attacks and insults.[/quote'] the only argument anyone has really presented so far is 'flagging didn't work because we didn't like it.' I haven't really seen anything much better than that. If you have, please inform me.

I do respect that you actually took the time to respond to me' date=' so I'll give you my view on the issue. Considering how easy zombies are to dispose of and that supplies continually respawn, we would have no problem with survival if we worked together. The problem that has been created by dayz is that there is an inordinate amount of weapons available to people who have varying degrees of morality when it comes to other players. Over time, this has deteriorated to the point where chancing an encounter with someone unknown is too dangerous because with the weaponry it can be kill or be killed (even at 800-1200m).

It is correct to say that the lawlessness in the environment has made the lands an essential deathmatch, and what you are trying to bring up is a system that governs in some way. The thing with the environment that has been created is that our police force, military, and rules of morality have been eliminated or have deteriorated. By pleading to make a game mechanic change it is similar to pleading to GOD or a god of some sort to make an alteration to life to make it more fair (which if you are trying to play the game like a realistic post-apocalyptic scenario you are attempting to make it more non-realistic). [/quote'] which is why if a system was created of separating the lawless vs the law abiding, it would create a larger social dynamic for much better playing. Adding in a bounty system would even further this type of play. Bandit groups would be hunted by non bandit groups. Large firefights and town control would start to occur. All sorts of possibilities.

[KWilt 157]

Page 19. You guys need to stop feeding the troll.

Pfft. I'm not feeding a troll. I'm having the best time of my life.

See, trolls actually have a point. This, doesn't.

[preka 0]

A victim is moaning ITT. Thanks for the beans' date=' people would kill you IRL for your beans too if there was no laws to stop them. Mongels much?

[/quote']

And others would come after your ass and kill you for being a butchering murderer.

It works both ways.

At least in real life its KNOWN that mongel killed someone for their beans. And his friends come after you.

This is you, citing "realism", on this very subject.

When asked how, realistically, those others would know what you had done, you revert to, "Whatever, it's a game, allowances must be made for gameplay!"

[PinkTaco24 10]

In fact' date=' hell, I gave you the reasons why I'm against this idea. Yet, you care little if innocents are caught in the crossfire. So... yeah. There's that.

[/quote']

all you did was try and point out exploits in my very rough sketch of a flagging system. Not one actual reason as to why a flagging system as a whole, is bad.

completely, and utterly NOT the same thing.

[doitonlan 0]

I wouldn't be against having other things added to the game to increase the social dynamics, but I simply don't believe in flagging people in this way. For me the whole experience that has been created where anyone could be an enemy other than the friends you are with is what keeps me coming back. I just believe that having something that visually flags someone in this way to take away from the feel of the whole experience.

[PinkTaco24 10]

A victim is moaning ITT. Thanks for the beans' date=' people would kill you IRL for your beans too if there was no laws to stop them. Mongels much?

[/quote']

And others would come after your ass and kill you for being a butchering murderer.

It works both ways.

At least in real life its KNOWN that mongel killed someone for their beans. And his friends come after you.

This is you, citing "realism", on this very subject.

When asked how, realistically, those others would know what you had done, you revert to, "Whatever, it's a game, allowances must be made for gameplay!"

get off the realism bandwagon man. its a stupid argument.

---

See' date=' trolls actually have a point. This, doesn't.

[/quote']

it doesn't have a point?

uhhh..

yeah i guess presenting the idea to have a flagging system to divert the game from devolving into deathmatch isn't a point.

fucking idiot.

you are now on my ignore.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

the only argument anyone has really presented so far is 'flagging didn't work because we didn't like it.' I haven't really seen anything much better than that. If you have, please inform me.

There was the argument that said a much more elegant system would be one that gave you the ability to identify your own enemies so that the game doesn't have to do it for you.

The one you completely ignored and glossed over. Like you glossed over all the enormous gaping holes that your system leaves.

Still laughing at the fact that if I'm in a firefight with 3 people I'm only allowed to shoot the ones that have thus far successfully hit me with bullets. Otherwise I'm a criminal and have to "deal with it." Yup. Flawless system, yours. No better around, that's for sure.

You've convinced me. Implement it today.

[preka 0]

A victim is moaning ITT. Thanks for the beans' date=' people would kill you IRL for your beans too if there was no laws to stop them. Mongels much?

[/quote']

And others would come after your ass and kill you for being a butchering murderer.

It works both ways.

At least in real life its KNOWN that mongel killed someone for their beans. And his friends come after you.

A victim is moaning ITT. Thanks for the beans' date=' people would kill you IRL for your beans too if there was no laws to stop them. Mongels much?

[/quote']

And others would come after your ass and kill you for being a butchering murderer.

It works both ways.

At least in real life its KNOWN that mongel killed someone for their beans. And his friends come after you.

This is you, citing "realism", on this very subject.

When asked how, realistically, those others would know what you had done, you revert to, "Whatever, it's a game, allowances must be made for gameplay!"

get off the realism bandwagon man. its a stupid argument.

But you didn't think it was a stupid argument when *you* were presenting it.

I'm not arguing realism. I'm pointing out that you can't seem to string together a coherent argument that doesn't blatantly disagree with itself.

This is because you are not a logical, rational thinker. You are simply another selfish person who is trying to get his way at any and all costs - thus, when *you* throw down the "realism" argument, you feel it is a valid and logical position. When someone else does it - even in response to your very own realism argument - it's a "stupid argument".

QED.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled infantile tantrum.

[PinkTaco24 10]

I wouldn't be against having other things added to the game to increase the social dynamics' date=' but I simply don't believe in flagging people in this way. For me the whole experience that has been created where anyone could be an enemy other than the friends you are with is what keeps me coming back. I just believe that having something that visually flags someone in this way to take away from the feel of the whole experience.

[/quote']

There is no experience. The only way to be safe, is to simply assume everyone is an enemy. And just kill them.

Not to mention, the game rewards you for this behavior in its current state.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

yeah i guess presenting the idea to have a flagging system to divert the game from devolving into deathmatch isn't a point.

We don't have a flagging system.

Yet, the game hasn't devolved into a deathmatch.

Going to say it every time you post it.

[doitonlan 0]

Pink I think you make a valid point that the game has potential to add some great components to way we exist in this virtual world, but I would like to think of some other possibilities that could be implemented that hide the magically occurring flagging system.

I don't know if this would work properly, but having the ability to make gangs with home bases or town centers that can be built up where if you kill someone there would be repercussions because there would be guards or other people around that could do something about it. For example, have a town center that has one access point, and inside killing and drawing your weapon would cause other people to kill you in response to it. That way there could be discussions and people could build rapport and find other people to make groups. Just an idea.

[KWilt 157]

In fact' date=' hell, I gave you the reasons why I'm against this idea. Yet, you care little if innocents are caught in the crossfire. So... yeah. There's that.

[/quote']

all you did was try and point out exploits in my very rough sketch of a flagging system. Not one actual reason as to why a flagging system as a whole, is bad.

completely, and utterly NOT the same thing.

So... patch the exploits and maybe I'll agree with you? Or, don't. Y'know.

Hell, while we're at it, let's get rocket to release the helicopters onto the servers again. The radar is an exploit, but that's no reason not to have it in the game.