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

[PinkTaco24 10]

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.

Yeah.. I guess you don't have any knowledge of software development do you?

I ignored that idea because its practically impossible to develop. The only way to really handle that is to to keep track of EVERY person that has EVER fired in your general direction. That's a fucking nightmare.

There are realistic design choices, and there are unrealistic ones. Not to mention, i can point out a million exploits in identifying your own enemies anyway.

Plus, in a sense, this game does it already. You identify an enemy by anyone you shoot at. There. Identified.

its not enough.

[KWilt 157]

you are now on my ignore.

Aww! How cute! He ignored me! Party at the tent city~

[PinkTaco24 10]

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

The only reason i even brought it up in the OP is because so many tards on this forum continually refer to it. Its a stupid argument to even bring into discussion as often as people do. It has its place but here, is not one of them.

so if you don't have any REAL value to add to the post, other than to try and find stupid gimmicky arguments against 'WELL HERE YOU SAID REALISM WAS BAD AND HERE YOU SAY ITS OK' then refrain from posting. because its just a waste of time, off topic, and no one gives a shit.

This game has both realistic and non-realistic elements to it. Therefore, you can present the argument to have both realistic and non-realistic game mechanics. There is no incoherent argument here. The game has both.

[doitonlan 0]

So I'm looking for some people to help make this a constructive argument. Any takers? Could anything be implemented to the game that might create more and better group dynamics? Would it take away from the original concept of a post-apocalyptic zombie survival scenario?

There seems to be some intelligent people here, so let us see if we can change it to an intelligent discussion.

[PinkTaco24 10]

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' date=' the game hasn't devolved into a deathmatch.

Going to say it every time you post it.

[/quote']

and im going to tell you every time you try and say its not deathmatch.

it is.

[KWilt 157]

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

The only reason i even brought it up in the OP is because so many tards on this forum continually refer to it. Its a stupid argument to even bring into discussion as often as people do. It has its place but here, is not one of them.

so if you don't have any REAL value to add to the post, other than to try and find stupid gimmicky arguments against 'WELL HERE YOU SAID REALISM WAS BAD AND HERE YOU SAY ITS OK' then refrain from posting. because its just a waste of time, off topic, and no one gives a shit.

I don't think it's a gimmicky argument. I mean, really, if you can't agree with yourself, how are we supposed to agree with you? If you're just going to go with what will make people like your argument better than someone else's, is it really the best argument?

[preka 0]

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

The only reason i even brought it up in the OP is because so many tards on this forum continually refer to it. Its a stupid argument to even bring into discussion as often as people do. It has its place but here, is not one of them.

so if you don't have any REAL value to add to the post, other than to try and find stupid gimmicky arguments against 'WELL HERE YOU SAID REALISM WAS BAD AND HERE YOU SAY ITS OK' then refrain from posting. because its just a waste of time, off topic, and no one gives a shit.

REAL value? Like calling anyone who disagrees with you a fucking idiot? :D Well. I'm generally opposed, but I think I can scrounge some of that up.

You claimed you were presenting an argument from logic. I pointed out an internal inconsistency in your position that, by definition, cannot be present in a logical argument.

As an aside, you're also not a moderator on this particular forum, so why not save yourself the embarrassment of impotently commanding other forum users to obey your will? You've no power of enforcement, so it's as futile as it is childish.

Edit: Whoops - I forgot to add the value. *Ahem* "Fucking idiot." There we go.

[KWilt 157]

So I'm looking for some people to help make this a constructive argument. Any takers? Could anything be implemented to the game that might create more and better group dynamics? Would it take away from the original concept of a post-apocalyptic zombie survival scenario?

There seems to be some intelligent people here' date=' so let us see if we can change it to an intelligent discussion.

[/quote']

Well, I would definitely love to see some form of grouping be implemented before we start focusing on any actual coop-directed gameplay in DayZ. Once we can actually solidify who is in our group and cut down on the chances of friendly fire, then I'm all for ideas that give advantage to coop, but don't kill lone wolf.

One thing I saw mentioned in a topic before was that some actions can be done quicker than others (such as logging, fixing vehicles, et cetera) if more than one person is doing the action. I like this, as a solo person can still do every action that a group can do, but a group can just do it much more efficiently and quickly.

[PinkTaco24 10]

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

[/quote']

so your problem here is that I didn't sit down for 2 weeks designing a perfect system for implementation that rocket may or may not even have any interest at ALL in implementing?

You sir, are a joke.

I presented the highlights. If the mods are interested, they can run with it. Or not.

But to sit here and basically troll this thread simply because you found a single loophole that could probably be squashed in testing or implementation is just fucking ridiculous. And then, to think because you did that you are some grand genious and my idea totally sucks is even more laughable.

Hahaha, the sadness level of your arguments actually humors me.

---

REAL value? Like calling anyone who disagrees with you a fucking idiot? :D Well. I'm generally opposed' date=' but I think I can scrounge some of that up.

You claimed you were presenting an argument from logic. I pointed out an internal inconsistency in your position that, by definition, cannot be present in a logical argument.

As an aside, you're also not a moderator on this particular forum, so why not save yourself the embarrassment of impotently commanding other forum users to obey your will? You've no power of enforcement, so it's as futile as it is childish.

Edit: Whoops - I forgot to add the value. *Ahem* "Fucking idiot." There we go.

[/quote']

Bro, you are trying way to hard to 'troll' by 'lololol your logic is backward and therefore you are dumb lolol'

There is no problem with my logic, argument, presented idea, or whatever at face value. You are digging WAY too deep into semantics and trying to pull out fallacies in arguments that have nothing to do with the main subject at hand.

its fucking pathetic.

move along.

[Zombie_chew_toy 2]

Pink I think it is at its core a deathmatch game, unfortunately. It is basically a slow gear grind, just so the player can kill 'noobs with impunity.

I personally was attracted to the game because of videos showing cooperation between total strangers in a post-apocalyptic setting. I mean there are a least 10 good FPS games out there that dont require 10, 20, 30+ hours to gear up. And I enjoy playing them. But this was supposed to be something different.

I choose to play it differently that I think its designed to be played. I play a survivalist, and in all my time playing (maybe 50+ hours in game) Ive only ever shot 1 other person, and that was because he scared the shit outta me when I opened a door and he was standing five feet away with a gun pointed at me. Im sure he was alt-tabbed cause I went 'tharn for about 5 seconds.

But Id love to play co-op where I dont feel like Im going to get a face full of lead by helping someone. But like your post, its too risky for a geared person to help and to much incentive for a newly spawned person to just blast away.

The only true way to fix it is to incentivise cooperation, by either not killing other players or helping them instead. And to do that you break some of the realism. But then again this is a game with zombies...

I think your original post is only one step in the process.

[doitonlan 0]

I actually focused much of my researching in school to group dynamics and creation, so thinking about potential solutions to implement to get people to work together in a situation like this is actually quite entertaining. I'm trying to think what would be enough motivation to risk approaching a potential hostile to help increase cooperation.

So far, I only play with people I know and almost never play solo. I wonder if created organizations with status rankings and bases might encourage me to do so.

[KWilt 157]

so your problem here is that I didn't sit down for 2 weeks designing a perfect system for implementation that rocket may or may not even have any interest at ALL in implementing?

You sir' date=' are a joke.

I presented the highlights. If the mods are interested, they can run with it. Or not.

But to sit here and basically troll this thread simply because you found a single loophole that could probably be squashed in testing or implementation is just fucking ridiculous. And then, to think because you did that you are some grand genious and my idea totally sucks is even more laughable.

Hahaha, the sadness level of your arguments actually humors me.

[/quote']

Oh, I'm sorry that I saw the flaws in your idea and asked you how you plan to compensate for these flaws. It's ridiculous of me to point out where there are problems in your idea, so that you can possibly correct them and make your idea better. It's foolish of me to nitpick at the vast errors in your calculations, and think that Survivor C wouldn't shoot Survivor A because he defended himself.

Also, glad to know that '2 weeks' only lasts about an hour or so in your world, since that's about all it took to find that loophole of yours. Years must go by quick where you live.

By the way, glad to see you didn't actually ignore me. Kinda was sad there for a second.

[preka 0]

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

[/quote']

so your problem here is that I didn't sit down for 2 weeks designing a perfect system for implementation that rocket may or may not even have any interest at ALL in implementing?

You sir, are a joke.

I presented the highlights. If the mods are interested, they can run with it. Or not.

But to sit here and basically troll this thread simply because you found a single loophole that could probably be squashed in testing or implementation is just fucking ridiculous. And then, to think because you did that you are some grand genious and my idea totally sucks is even more laughable.

Hahaha, the sadness level of your arguments actually humors me.

---

REAL value? Like calling anyone who disagrees with you a fucking idiot? :D Well. I'm generally opposed' date=' but I think I can scrounge some of that up.

You claimed you were presenting an argument from logic. I pointed out an internal inconsistency in your position that, by definition, cannot be present in a logical argument.

As an aside, you're also not a moderator on this particular forum, so why not save yourself the embarrassment of impotently commanding other forum users to obey your will? You've no power of enforcement, so it's as futile as it is childish.

Edit: Whoops - I forgot to add the value. *Ahem* "Fucking idiot." There we go.

[/quote']

Bro, you are trying way to hard to 'troll' by 'lololol your logic is backward and therefore you are dumb lolol'

There is no problem with my logic, argument, presented idea, or whatever at face value. You are digging WAY too deep into semantics and trying to pull out fallacies in arguments that have nothing to do with the main subject at hand.

its fucking pathetic.

move along.

What are you talking about? It doesn't require any "digging". It's probably readily apparent to anyone who has read your posts in series.

Maybe you should stop making so many excuses and divert some of that name-calling effort toward composing an argument that isn't demonstrably flawed?

[PinkTaco24 10]

I actually focused much of my researching in school to group dynamics and creation' date=' so thinking about potential solutions to implement to get people to work together in a situation like this is actually quite entertaining. I'm trying to think what would be enough motivation to risk approaching a potential hostile to help increase cooperation.

So far, I only play with people I know and almost never play solo. I wonder if created organizations with status rankings and bases might encourage me to do so.

[/quote']

Do you not see how what I presented creates a division and grouping system naturally?

bandits vs survivors.

[LastShenanigan 8]

It isn't Deathmatch, you have no apparently grasp on what Deathmatch is. I'll explain, Deathmatch is a gametype found in many shooters in which players are pitted against each other. The goal of Deathmatch is for players to kill as many other players as they can until a time limit or goal is met. So until a big "BaNdIt's WiN!" screen pops up and we all start over you are only blowing smoke by making ignorant comparisons. Your suggested fix to players killing each other is esstianly World of Warcrafts pvp system in which once a player has attacked another they are "flagged" as an attacker. Player killing doesn't need to be fixed, you do. Plenty of people enjoy exactly the direction this game is going in and you feel it should be changed because it doesn't suit you. Next you'll suggest seperating the servers so PvEr can play house in the apocalypse until they get bored and move on to the next game in which the only challenge presented is killing npcs.

[PinkTaco24 10]

Maybe you should stop making so many excuses and divert some of that name-calling effort toward composing an argument that isn't demonstrably flawed?

You have not once explained a single 'flaw' in my presented idea except

'BRO YOU SAID YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT REALISM HERE BUT SAID YOU DO CARE ABOUT REALISM HERE.'

Solid argument.

Solid.

[preka 0]

Maybe you should stop making so many excuses and divert some of that name-calling effort toward composing an argument that isn't demonstrably flawed?

You have not once explained a single 'flaw' in my presented idea except

'BRO YOU SAID YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT REALISM HERE BUT SAID YOU DO CARE ABOUT REALISM HERE.'

Solid argument.

Solid.

An argument that doesn't agree with itself is generally considered to be pretty flawed - at least when the rules of logic (which you allegedly subscribe to) are in play.

Of course, if you're just making it up as you go in an effort to have your way no matter what, internal consistency becomes less important. :D

[KWilt 157]

I actually focused much of my researching in school to group dynamics and creation' date=' so thinking about potential solutions to implement to get people to work together in a situation like this is actually quite entertaining. I'm trying to think what would be enough motivation to risk approaching a potential hostile to help increase cooperation.

So far, I only play with people I know and almost never play solo. I wonder if created organizations with status rankings and bases might encourage me to do so.

[/quote']

Here's a thought, doit. What if we take what you have been research it, and apply it directly to DayZ? No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being totally serious.

I don't know how rocket wants servers to run, but what if somebody ran a private server, where we could, quite literally, just run tests on people in the means of cooperation? Things like: turning off all weapon spawns, turning down food spawns by 50-75%, turning up zombie spawns, et cetera. Realistically, these things, of course, wouldn't work in the real game, because it wouldn't be able to sustain the whole player base. But if we had a control group of, say 50 to 100 players, at random, we could try and see it tested.

Granted, I don't exactly know if this is even a viable reality, because rocket might not even want to let people play with the server settings of the mod that much. But if we were able to, we might be able to find certain situations where people would work best, and try and emulate them in the full DayZ alpha.

[PinkTaco24 10]

Oh' date=' I'm sorry that I saw the flaws in your idea and asked you how you plan to compensate for these flaws. It's ridiculous of me to point out where there are problems in your idea, so that you can possibly correct them and make your idea better. It's foolish of me to nitpick at the vast errors in your calculations, and think that Survivor C wouldn't shoot Survivor A because he defended himself.

Also, glad to know that '2 weeks' only lasts about an hour or so in your world, since that's about all it took to find that loophole of yours. Years must go by quick where you live.

By the way, glad to see you didn't actually ignore me. Kinda was sad there for a second.

[/quote']

So then you admit to taking the forums way too seriously?

I had an idea to enhance and better the gameplay. You simply sat and tried to nitpick it.

I'm not a dayZ designer. But I know the system works. Its in other games. If you want a fullproof mechanic, or how it would be implemented very specifically into dayZ, then talk to rocket.

[jelly2m8 14]

Without the fear of being killed by another player at any givin moment this game will loose it's lustre, anyone can crawl past Zombies all day long without worry. This game would then be both boring and much like any of the other zombie slaying games.

[PinkTaco24 10]

An argument that doesn't agree with itself is generally considered to be pretty flawed - at least when the rules of logic (which you allegedly subscribe to) are in play.

yeah.. except my argument DOES agree with itself sooo....

again.. you have pointed out 1 stupid, nitpicky bullshit semantic argument that has nothing to do with the REAL point at hand. and have focused SOLELY on that topic because you have NOTHING ELSE to argue.

That usually means.. you lose.

[doitonlan 0]

I already have been working to create an organization that houses the model for connecting gamers to each type of gameplay and community in Counter-strike. It is currently only experimental, but I will be gathering data and testing the financial viability once it gets moving more.

Pink my intent is not to hijack your thread, but I feel like this thread is more for arguing against each other.

I made a thread to see if we can rack our brains with ideas and discussion here: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=27222

[preka 0]

An argument that doesn't agree with itself is generally considered to be pretty flawed - at least when the rules of logic (which you allegedly subscribe to) are in play.

yeah.. except my argument DOES agree with itself sooo....

again.. you have pointed out 1 stupid' date=' nitpicky bullshit semantic argument that has nothing to do with the REAL point at hand. and have focused SOLELY on that topic because you have NOTHING ELSE to argue.

That usually means.. you lose.

[/quote']

You don't seem to actually understand what "semantics" means. It refers specifically to the words you chose to use.

I'm referring, here, to the actual substance of the two conflicting positions which you still have yet to actually resolve.

You cite realism when it suits you, and ignore it when it does not, because you are not interested in logic - you are only interested in getting your way.

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

Explain how, in real life, it is KNOWN that someone killed someone for their beans.

This is not a matter of semantics. This is a matter of logical consistency. You made this claim.

I assert that, absent witnesses or evidence, nobody would know that this is the case. Defend your statement.

[doitonlan 0]

Come say hi if you're interested =)

[PinkTaco24 10]

still harking on the same old stuff that doesn't matter preka