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

[tacticaljim 28]

I disagree with your proposal but do think that mechanics should be introduced that simulate the real world consequences and effects caused by murder. See my post posts for my proposals if interested.

Before everyone flies off the handle at the title' date=' I'm only explaining what IS happening. I don't know the design intentions of this game. Maybe a Deathmatch style game is what the designers want. Again, I don't know..

I'm just presenting the notion that unless there is a penalty to murderers, that is all we will and do see.

Currently there is ZERO penalty for killing another player. In fact, there is only reward. Their loot. In a system such as this, its not only the smart option from a defensive standpoint, its the smart option from a tactical standpoint. No penalty, and free gear. Finding another player is like finding a goldmine. All benefit. This is a video game, an in that sense players will reap the rewards if they are handed to them. If you want to start arguing it may be 'unrealistic' to have a murderer flag system.. then I say its also 'unrealistic' to have no penalty to murdering someone. In real life we have penalties for murder. In this game currently, we don't.

In any other game that has this kind of system(where you loot all gear) there is almost always a penalty to murdering innocents. If anyone has played ultima online, you know what I am talking about.

I suggest a system be in place for players to see those who murder frequently and those who don't. I understand bandit skins were used for this purpose, but I think it would need to be account wide not life wide.

But again, all this is under the assumption a deathmatch style game is NOT what the developers want. I actually don't know. But as this game stands, thats exactly what we have. Personally I would prefer to not have a deathmatch style game, where every player you see its kill or be killed. But, if that's the way the game goes.. I doubt I will quit or anything outrageous. Its just more into the 'shooter' style of play rather than 'survival' style of play.

---------- I propose a flagging system as simple as this ------------

1. Killing an innocent or shooting an innocent(but not necessarily killing) nets you a bandit/murderer skin for X amount of minutes. (5,10,20, whatever)

2. Killing an innocent nets you a murder tally.

3. After Y amount of murder tallys, you are constantly flagged as a bandit/murder until your tally count goes back below the threshold

4. After Z amount of hours played, you lose 1 tally.

5. Survivors can kill bandits at no penalty.

6. Bandits can kill bandits at no penalty.

7. If someone initiates aggression against a survivor, they can fight back and kill the aggressor without penalty.

So if you choose to, you can still murder freely. You just simply murder other murderers. If you choose to murder indefinitely, you run risk of being an obvious open target. EVERYONE is still technically an open target.

[/quote']

[Upshot 19]

Murdering X1 Player lowers your maximum blood by 1000.

Perhaps an item exists to regain it, hey, this idea took me 15 seconds of thought.

It would make people think twice about killing, and that's what the whole argument of every player in this game wants.

[PinkTaco24 10]

I was an Ultima Online player' date=' you are pretty much quoting the system exactly what it was back then.

It wasn't exactly the best system but it was the 1990s, it was one of its kind in its time, DayZ is a different game in a different time all together after all.

Point 3 & 4. People are just gonna stay logged in somehow out of map to lose the murder tally, taking up server slots. What's the point?

DayZ is not Ultima Online. DayZ's unique selling point is the realism as a game, yet is fun and challenging at the same time.

In a world without enforcement, survival of the fittest theory stays. There are people who are going to do whatever it takes, beyond their conscience, humanity to survive. There are people who get together and help each other survive. Different groups of people, different perspectives, different mission.

Clear flagging IMO loses the challenge. Yes, people shoot on sight, but I as a server admin have also seen the banding of people together, especially when the server is more challenging, rather than easy.

I don't know, DayZ attract me so far mainly because of the challenges and concept of the developer till date to keep it fairly realistic yet fun. Amazing game with its own focus, and the developer sticking to their conviction and core concept.

[/quote']

So what if its an old system? Why change what works? Your argument is these games aren't the same but they are. One just happens to be a shooter, one was an RPG. But they are BOTH sandbox games.

Just because the idea is older, doesn't mean it didn't work. Chess is an old game too, so is poker. But the rules work.

Age is not a factor.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Let players assign their own flags.

Much better system. More realistic and more appropriate for a sandbox. Complete power and responsibility rests with the players to observe behavior and make their own judgements. No third party judge built into the system.

Curious to see you argue against this one since it accomplishes what you want (labels players based on behavior) but does so without the need for magical faeries to come along and change peoples' clothes or paint their faces pretty colors for you.

---

Just because the idea is older' date=' doesn't mean it didn't work. Chess is an old game too, so is poker. But the rules work.

[/quote']

Thick irony here, since both of those games rely heavily on misdirection, deception and the ability of players to hide their true plans and intentions from their opponents.

If DayZ were a poker game this thread would be about you demanding that people wear red hats when they're going to bluff.

[KWilt 157]

So what if its an old system? Why change what works? Your argument is these games aren't the same but they are. One just happens to be a shooter' date=' one was an RPG. But they are BOTH sandbox games.

Just because the idea is older, doesn't mean it didn't work. Chess is an old game too, so is poker. But the rules work.

Age is not a factor.

[/quote']

I don't see why we can't play this with the rules of Minecraft, then. It's a sandbox, and you think that the rules for all sandboxes are interchangeable.

Also, yes. Older rules work. But the rules in chess aren't used outside of chess. So I fail to see what your comparison is here. Unless you're saying that Ultima Online is the exact same game as DayZ. In which case... well, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

[adjial@gmail.com 3]

So what if its an old system? Why change what works? Your argument is these games aren't the same but they are. One just happens to be a shooter' date=' one was an RPG. But they are BOTH sandbox games.

Just because the idea is older, doesn't mean it didn't work. Chess is an old game too, so is poker. But the rules work.

Age is not a factor.

[/quote']

Age is not a factor, neither was that my key point of contention.

You fail to address the part where people stays logged in to remove murder count, as was clearly the case in Ultima Online.

It was a problem that was never addressed.

I never say the idea is entirely bad, but your point 3 and 4 is not the solution as there is a clear loop hole, on top of people staying logged into the servers.

Ultima Online is a MMORPG, sandbox. DayZ at this point in time is not a MMORPG sandbox, every bandit that stays in game to remove their murder count over time to appear just like any other survivors takes up a server slot.

Is that a good solution? Please tell me you think that is, if you believe your age old solution is the way to go.

[Guest]

the only reason there is a perceived proble with "bandits" these days is because the devs introduced a skin in the first place and once it was removed people were butthurt because they couldn't judge a book by its cover.

Instead of restricting the game with your suggestions why not try another zombie game. The brutality of an apocalypse is obviously too much for your sensitive little soul.

[dagon (DayZ) 17]

LOL another deathmatch thread. its like a buffet.

[gizm0 96]

the only reason there is a perceived proble with "bandits" these days is because the devs introduced a skin in the first place and once it was removed people were butthurt because they couldn't judge a book by its cover.

Instead of restricting the game with your suggestions why not try another zombie game. The brutality of an apocalypse is obviously too much for your sensitive little soul.

[Ankhenaten 111]

In real life there would a reward for team work. In real life the zombies would become less. There would also not be a constant influx of new unarmed people on their own. The world would also be persistent.

As it stands I now hunt hunters. :P

Vigilante justice, let's crush the oppressors. :D

It would be good to be able to mortality wound them and still take their gear. Wounded just seems to give the option to heal. I want them to suffer and crawl along. ;)

[baz (DayZ) 19]

Keep shooting them in the legs until they run out of morphine. :)

[ponc 100]

GET OUTTA HERE.

[PinkTaco24 10]

Ultima Online is a MMORPG, sandbox. DayZ at this point in time is not a MMORPG sandbox, every bandit that stays in game to remove their murder count over time to appear just like any other survivors takes up a server slot.

Is that a good solution? Please tell me you think that is, if you believe your age old solution is the way to go.

So then log out inactives. problem solved.

[b00m666 38]

I'd would just be better if they had global chat back.

[The Poacher 31]

I'm going to bet all of you 'super hard pvpers' would be dead within a week in an actual apocalypse.

[TheMachine 803]

I'm going to bet all of you 'super hard pvpers' would be dead within a week in an actual apocalypse.

I'm going to bet all you super hard whiners would be the first ones to curl up and cry for mommy.

[Remix (DayZ) 14]

I haven't read the thread at all, but I agree with OP.

[Valec 55]

In real life there would a reward for team work. In real life the zombies would become less. There would also not be a constant influx of new unarmed people on their own. The world would also be persistent.

As it stands I now hunt hunters. :P

Vigilante justice, let's crush the oppressors. :D

It would be good to be able to mortality wound them and still take their gear. Wounded just seems to give the option to heal. I want them to suffer and crawl along. ;)

Uh, in real life, the zombies would become less? You really think the fraction of remaining survivors would honestly be able to put a dent in the population of zombies? That's one of the most absurd things i've ever heard.

The rewards for teamwork would be much in real life as they are in DayZ. Standard benefits for being with a group of people with all the cons that go with it.

[PinkTaco24 10]

I'm going to bet all you super hard whiners would be the first ones to curl up and cry for mommy.

I hardly doubt all the nerd raging internet chumps that harass and abuse people online are going to be the alpha surviving community they all want to believe themselves to be.

[brites 4]

please stop with the deathmatch / cod threads already.

So far, I've temporaly teamed up with 4 players, and i had no idea if they would kill me or team up.

If you want partners, take the risk. If you dont, either shoot to kill or slip away.

About the penalty for killing:

I dont think that in a zombie apocalypse anyone would go to jail or give a fine to pay. As I said, its either shoot or run.

IMHO, the game is good as it is in terms of features. Some little tweaks on the coding and adding some features and the game is perfect.

[Bottlerocket 205]

Simple - take out sniper rifles and make military weapons extremely, exremely rare.

At least until the unlimited ammo bug is fixed. See how many bandits you get when bullets become a scare commodity.

[Hoboleader 22]

penalties for murder in a post apocalyptic world? what are we gonna have CSI come after us?? what we need is for clans to take the initiative to secure starting areas. that way there will be a few noob friendly servers. But i mean NW airfield is without a doubt a deathmatch area. Best loot in the game, and u know if someone makes it all the way out there they probably have some decent gear. So i dont think someone should have some kind of penalty for making it all the way out there and getting a kill.

The game is shoot first ask questions later. Deal with it, or risk dieing.

If ive got NV goggles, range finder, m240, and an m9sd, im not gonna screw around asking friendly, im gonna kill the bastard even if he is friendly.

[ssp0929 1]

People crying about getting killed by bandits?

The bigger problem are zombies and their spidey senses. If someone has better loot than me I will shoot and kill them to take their stuff.

Stop whining about getting killed by other players. If you get shot and killed it means you weren't sneaking/hiding well enough. That's your own fucking fault.

Edited July 11, 2012 by ssp0929

[bbilbo1 149]

People who say "We kill everyone in DayZ, because In a real apocalypse event, that's how it would happen." are wrong.

Objectively Wrong.

Players are killing for fun because they have an audience, with total anonymity, and no consequences for their actions. I'm willing to wager that if we played this same game in a giant internet cafe and all the players had their ID listed, gameplay would be very different than it is now.

Not to mention is cases of extreme threat, danger, and survival, in real life, humanity has pulled through based on the nature of brotherhood and morality. The antisocial presence was always and will always be the minority.

Also, in my personal speculation, it's summer and a lot of fail parents let their kids be asshats online because

1) their cluless/dont care

and

2) they don't think internet interactions count as social situations.

Parents don't teach their kids concepts like sportsmanship, playing for the love of the game, not the love of the win, winning/losing gracefully, and generally how not to be a dick.

[Alphie(SN) 32]

I like the thrill of the unknown. My butt tightens a little bit when I see another player and I only have a flashlight. Wonder if that guy saw me? Is he a baddie or a goodie? Should I risk saying something?

You lose all that when folks are tagged by the game system. I say keep it open.