The thrill of the kill? Transporting psychological aspects into game mechanics

[Knautscher 4]

Hi.

This text wall is not supposed to join the many fine "whines" we have here on the forums, it is meant as a constructive and hopefully comprehensive slice of cheese, an explanation of certain aspects, that I think should be considered in game, as they weigh in in real life as well. And yes it deals with the so called "PvP problem" that I however do not consider as such.

English is not my first language, so you are welcome to point out any typos or odd phrases you come across to me for correction, but please don’t go all “grammar nahtzee” on me.

Thank you.

And now to our main feature presentation:

Playerbase divided – carebears vs. natural born killers

Unfortunately the DayZ playerbase is divided into three factions: the extremely PvE loving “carebears”, the extremely ignorant “natural born killers” (or maybe rather decepticons? to stay with the cartoon theme...) and, caught in between, the neurotic, paranoid “Survivors” of this struggle. As you probably have guessed already, the answer lies in between: neither overprotective hoarders, nor anti-social mass murderers are very realistic or entertaining, yet they all have a certain right to exist within the game world.

Killing on sight is okay – it’s the apocalypse alright!?

Well, no. I mean, yes it is the apocalypse, but killing on sight is neither “fun” nor “okay” for a majority of players, who want to enjoy the survival setting instead of having to fight their way through just another zombie shooter. I’ve often seen the argument that DayZ is the wrong game for these kind of players then, as it clearly emphasizes the use of weapons against other players as a major aspect of its design.

While this is undoubtedly true, it is just one and not the only major aspect of DayZ. It’s supposed to be about survival. Defending your life against the wretched scum of humanity should be one aspect of this game, but not the defining one. On top of that, randomly killing strangers is by no means “natural”. If you think it’s normal to kill people once you won’t get sued for it, you’ve got a mental condition, it has nothing to do with any apocalypse.

Some PKs like to argue, that only laws and the police force hold us back from tearing each other apart. The truth is, that laws and the police force have unanimously been implemented by the majority of people, to protect them from the very few individuals who are incapable (e.g. due to lack of empathy) to live in harmony with them.

Despite all the raging conflicts and the nbks’ admiration for the sheer badassary of heartless killers, mankind is a highly cooperative, social construct and most people are unwilling to kill their own kind, unless they are forced to do so by harsh influences. But more on that later on.

By now you may feel an urge arising to tell me that I should “quit whining” or “stop bitching”, as I am clearly not cut out to master this game. Don’t bother, I enjoy the game even now, I just think some aspects need improvement and want to share my ideas with the community.

+++ Basic conditions +++

If the goal is creating a game world as close to reality as possible in this fictional scenario, we have to look at the basic conditions, so to speak: Who is the main actor? What exactly is the setting? What aspects of real life interactions have to be implemented to ensure an accurate model of post-apocalyptic humanity? What are we looking at, exactly? Let’s start with a general collection of concepts.

1 It’s the end of the world as we know it…

In DayZ, life as we know it has been brought to an utter halt, as a new infection has decimated our race, driven us out of our homes and brought humanity to their knees. However, humanity has not completely fallen victim to the apocalypse, as there still is a certain number of healthy individuals that fight to survive outside the comfort of civilization on a daily basis.

Some might have a faint hope that they can rebuild their old living conditions, renew their old concept of society others. There might be some who want to abuse the confusion and chaos that came with the disintegration of society, but for reasons I’ll explain later on, they would form a minority.

The state humanity finds itself in is not that new either. There once was a time before society, before cities, cars, councils, laws and police. Thankfully however people did not kill each other “for the lulz” back then, nor did they to pad up their stats, or to brag about their sheer badassness.

Instead, they formed groups. Families, communities, tribes and eventually societies and civilizations. This enabled mankind to soar ever higher, but it was eventually done to achieve the most basic (but also most important) goal: survival. By not bashing in each other’s head (unless it was perceived a necessary act to ensure survival of the tribe), mankind survived. Not killing each other out of sheer paranoia or brainless craving for blood and gore seems to be an important aspect of survival.

2 The Survivor

To accurately depict the player’s character, the survivor, we have to think of him not as some anonymous avatar, but rather as a role we assume and act out. Why role play? Well, technically, we play a role in every game we play, that’s part of the fiction of every game and also a major source of joy.

In most games we are clearly distanced from the role we assume, however to transport the despair and anxiety of the post apocalyptic world directly into the heart and mind of the player, being closer to the in game avatar is better for the experience.

How can we achieve that? By thinking about the role: background, needs, logical behavior and an individual component that is filled out by the player. All survivors are in the same position at the start of the game. They are:

- alone

- not equipped to survive without help

- and therefore in danger

This is the fuel that gets the player going: find food, find water, find tools, find means to defend himself and finally: find others who may have survived.

It can be assumed that the basic survivor has a basic education (learned to write, read, speak) and has a eastern European or western socialization (basic ethics, moral, maybe religion, social norms and general knowledge about socially expected and accepted behavior). Because of this the situation the character is in, should be all the more shocking: friends, family, society as a whole is gone. Former sites of safety and comfort have turned into perilous kill zones.

All of this puts the survivor in a tight spot and under great mental and physically showing stress, which should be taken into account when designing the gameplay.

3 Humans are herd animals

While this might lead people to believe that in their anxiety the generic survivor will kill anyone they meet, it is highly unlikely. Why is that? Well, other healthy, sane individuals such as the survivor himself would be viewed as a beacon of hope: I’m not alone! There are others! Maybe they can help me! Maybe they need my help!

Paranoia is a sedative, it blocks your ability to make decisions and slows you down. Meeting another person in a living hell of walking dead would not encourage, but break this paranoia, because humans are used to living in communities. Hardwired to overcome obstacles and preserve their race as one, they need cooperation, conversation and social interaction not only to function properly, but to simply survive.

Our collective memory, for example, is the only reason we have gotten this far in our evolution. The fact that we rather remember achievements of our species a as whole, rather than the one person who happened to stumble upon a certain realization first, hints at our genetically programmed need to form communities and live in social environments. Experiments have shown that prolonged isolation will not only make people miserable, insane or suicidal, but can actually kill them.

Because of this, and a human’s basic and very strong urge to find company, acceptance and a position within a group, it is very unlikely that a survivor would willingly kill everyone he meets without checking their motives, needs and connections first. Therefore KOS and even more PK for “hunting” and “for fun” as currently practiced in DayZ are unrealistic.

4 Psychological effects of killing

Studies have shown that the human brain likes to attribute backwards. What does that mean? It means that if we do something (e.g. raise our arms) we actually do not control that movement, we just assume we do. 90% of our actions “happen” automatically, we’re only in control of a fraction of our behavior. Yet we always talk about free will and our ability to do what we want, whenever we want.

This is attributing backwards: we do something, and because we have done it, we "conclude" that we must have wanted to do it. Same goes for social interaction: if you hit a stranger in the face for no reason, you’ll feel antipathy towards that person. Because you hit him. Your brain tells you, that you’re sane and that you certainly wouldn’t have hit him, if he hadn’t deserved it. It also goes the other way around, so be nice to people and oddly enough you'll like them better.

This way our brain tries to justify everything we do. It goes out of its way to make sense of the world. However, killing is – especially regarding evolution – highly illogical. It makes no sense to kill another human being (unless you’re cornered or urgently need supplies another person denies you).

Therefore killing, acting against your natural behavior and your social needs, puts great stress on your attributive system. You can hardly justify your actions and this gap between your actions and the real world situation damages your self-concept. Post traumatic stress from killing innocent people isn’t just a cool setup for a complicated character in war story you’ve heard; it actually exists. Or to put it in layman’s terms: Killing fucks you up, man.

Even soldiers and hardened spec ops, who train years on end to kill swiftly and without mercy, suffer from this. The human psyche is fragile, and while it can sustain a certain amount of cruelty, under certain conditions, it will eventually be damaged. And not in a cool “emotionless terminator” kind of way. Think more along the lines of losing your mind or losing your will to live on.

As a bonus we have the in game situation of an apocalypse. Not only is the world an unfriendly hell of mindless predators that have taken over your home and killed your family and friends. There are also very few people left. They are the last chance for the survivor to EVER talk to another person again, feel another person’s touch, the last people to care for, the last people to receive care from, the last of your own kind.

So: Why kill them for no reason? How could your tormented survivor brain ever make sense of that in a situation like this?

It couldn’t. Unless you’re in a really tight spot you would avoid or approach other people, not kill them.

 

+++ Game vs. Reality +++

How are all of these factors represented in the game world? Can everything even be implemented? Where are the limits of immersion, where do authenticity and gameplay collide?

5 The Game world

In our wonderful giant sandbox the bullies currently roam free unpunished, and they have every right to do so, because nothing is stopping them. They have chosen, as humans do, the easiest and most “profitable” style of gameplay: grab the best gear and kill the worst equipped players. Or well, just any player really, what does it matter as long as I end a virtual life?

The problem with this supposed badassary is, that it’s not very badass at all, illogical regarding the implications this kind of behavior would have IRL and it’s only rewarding for a very short moment, if at all.

Some players might have idealized the lone-wolf-hunter stereotype, proudly explaining they view themselves as eastwood-esque lone riders, purgers of the “weaklings” or completely emotionally detached serial killers à la Dexter Morgan. Well... m(

There are also no physical repercussions from firing weaponry you’ve never used in your life. Go out and try firing a .50 cal sniper rifle without proper training. You'll probably dislocate your shoulder from the recoil, or at least get bruises if you never learned how to use a gun like, that or lack the proper strength to safely operate it.

While it can be assumed that certain survivors might have had a military or hunting career, the majority won’t have that bonus. The military was used to counter the zombies and got crushed (killed or infected) and the survivors wear civilian clothing, so it is not logical that any gear can be used by anyone.

In addition weapons do not degrade ingame as they would in real life. I’m not saying guns are all high maintenance, but you have to clean them regularly and at some point change the barrel or other parts that wear out.

6 “Please! I don’t wanna die! ... Well actually… meh…”

A major difference between game and reality is the complete lack of emotion, feeling pain and psychological effects within the game. Of course there are obvious reasons why they miss: they are not necessary for the core game (Arma2) and are rather difficult to implement and accurately resemble their real life counterparts in a game.

However they are a major aspect of survival and should be implemented. You’re never out of breath, feel pain, or contemplate a fellow survivors fate. You won’t miss any anonymous guy you killed for fun and you don’t care about being all alone within the game – because you’re not alone in real life. You have friends, family, work, enough social contexts to suit your needs. This makes a fellow player’s life very cheap, when it should not be. Same goes for your own, virtual life.

Because for the character you play, the survivor, killing would be a major decision, especially under these conditions. Therefore the effects of loneliness and longing for conversation and social interaction should be part of the game. It’s about survival after all, not just about racking up kills.

7 How can these aspects, all of which you whine about so passionately, be translated into game play?

Huh, tough question. I’m against classic “penalties” for players who kill other players, like flagging/marking them as a bandit or making them attract more zombies. That would be illogical, unrealistic, the opposite of what I think is tried to be achieved here. Of course you might recognize a homocidal maniac from his facial expressions and overall behavior in real life, it's not the same as "flag" telling you with a 100% certainty that this one guy is a ruthless killer.

Then again, there are effects in reality that you could perceive as some sort of penalty, for example increased anxiety and nervousness. In fact it is some sort of penalty as we are designed to keep our race alive and prosper, so acting against that inner goal puts great stress on our self-concept; the brain stops us from acting against our own race. Without the hold of a rational world (and a zombie invasion can be assumed to pretty much shatter your world view) many people revert to a state of superstition and permanent anxiety.

As I said before: people always try to make sense of their world. And where the solution is not visible, people tend to insert their imagination.

This led to the creation of gods and demons as well as the myth of some world immanent “justice”.

It would be wrong to ignore how powerful this effect can be on humans though, so feeling paranoid, because you killed without any reason might lead to more nervousness and anxiety, represented by less stamina (as your body is on edge constantly) and a shaky vision/aim. This won’t stop people from PKing.

Because nothing should stop people from PKing. It’s part of the game, a vital element even. However the decision to actually kill another player in game should not be an easy one. Nothing should be easy, that is what makes it fun. A tough challenge, consequences for yourself whatever you do. Currently there is a simple, easy path that a large number of players take. I suggest that path be closed to make it hard for everyone, not just the nice people.

8 Any last words?

I hope you can understand the points I’ve made and maybe even appreciate some aspects.

If you didn’t understand something, feel free to ask. If you’ve seen that I’ve posted a wrong information, please point it out to me for discussion and correction.

And finally if you feel the need to flame, to bitch and moan mindlessly against my remarks, please go ahead. This is DayZ after all and no one should post here, thinking they would not attract a brainless mob that’ll tear them apart. : )

Best regards,

Knautscher

Tl;dr - Guns in game might be realistic, player behavior is not. If realism is to be achieved, something has to be done to address social-psychological aspects.

[teih 36]

Very good post. Thank you for taking your time to write this.

And also:

Because nothing should stop people from PKing. It’s part of the game, a vital element even. However the decision to actually kill another player in game should not be an easy one. Nothing should be easy, that is what makes it fun. A tough challenge, consequences for yourself whatever you do.

Well said.

[usszim 35]

Dear God, there's maturity on the forums! It's the apocalypse!!!!

That was a great read. Felt like I was in a psychology class with a really good professor. I'll be thinking about this next time I play.

To be honest, I almost went bandit. I saw a person crawling on a roof while I had a sniper on her. My bro was telling me to shoot, but I eventually settled for scaring them with a near-miss and letting it end there. So I guess, depending on the person, there is a psychological effect already there. The difference here is that the person in your sights can always come back.

[Kitrick 7]

Most excellent post. Would read again.

+1

[Siney 8]

Good post, but you spelled wine wrong D:

[teih 36]

Good post' date=' but you spelled wine wrong D:

[/quote']

It's a pun.

[Wired 1]

Bravo

[Specter911 2]

I read enough of your post to see the direction your supposedly going, though I doubt even the general populace would bother reading your post.

You may have made this point or not, but I believe you are for having this game actually be based on reality when it comes to killing another, not just everyone killing on sight one another.

To make this happen, we need 2 things.

1. A negative to killing another, I suggest having their blood on your hands.

The more you kill, murder or bandit kill, the more blood you gain on your body to a limit basically of being bathed in blood, possibly to a max of 20 combined kills of others.

It will gradually increase your presence to zombies to a varying degree to very high enough to attract zombies as if you have just fired a gun by standing there covered in blood.

Perhaps even add a visual, of the blood on your character to warn others you mean business, and to potentially look like a badass bandit.

The effect would be permanent to only that character until death, but an item as rare as antibiotics could remove all the blood off your body to make the punishment for murder severe enough to everyone.

Whats the purpose of entering a town if you kill everyone else for their loot?

2. More incentive for being in groups to warrant even grouping up with others, the incentives, I have not though of yet however, but there has to be more.

[DemonGroover 8836]

Great post - well put.

I agree almost entirely. PK-ing does need to be looked at because as you rightly say, despite what people may think murder is not in our DNA. As a species it is entirely self defeating. Groups (tribes, nations etc) of people may decide to kill but it is abnormal for lone people to wantonly kill strangers, unless of course they are desperate or "insane".

But what can be realistically done to curb the KoS issue? I proposed bandits requiring psychological drugs which non murderers dont require. A case of keeping the demons at bay, so to speak.

But then again it is a game and if players want to kill randomly for no reason other than a laugh can we blame them? We have two factions here i think FPS players from the CoD, B3 brigade and RPG/Simulation players. Both have different ideas on the game and both have valid reasons for their style of play. The two dont seem to mix.

Until there is consequence (not penalty) in game nothing will change.

[ponc 100]

came here, didn't read, posted this.

[Penguinman401 2]

[Knautscher 4]

Thanks for all the positive feedback and constructive ideas, so far. Maybe we can come up with actual solutions to some of the aforementioned aspects!

[...]

You may have made this point or not' date=' but I believe you are for having this game actually be based on reality when it comes to killing another, not just everyone killing on sight one another.

To make this happen, we need 2 things.

1. A negative to killing another, I suggest having their blood on your hands.

The more you kill, murder or bandit kill, the more blood you gain on your body to a limit basically of being bathed in blood, possibly to a max of 20 combined kills of others.

It will gradually increase your presence to zombies to a varying degree to very high enough to attract zombies as if you have just fired a gun by standing there covered in blood.

Perhaps even add a visual, of the blood on your character to warn others you mean business, and to potentially look like a badass bandit.

The effect would be permanent to only that character until death, but an item as rare as antibiotics could remove all the blood off your body to make the punishment for murder severe enough to everyone.

Whats the purpose of entering a town if you kill everyone else for their loot?[/quote']

Mh I don't know, I think this would be too unrealistic. Blood on your hands for a 500m sniper kill? Visible blood stains all over your clothes? Who would run around like that? Doesn't add up, imho.

2. More incentive for being in groups to warrant even grouping up with others' date=' the incentives, I have not though of yet however, but there has to be more.

[/quote']

Well there's plenty advantages to teaming up already, it's just that you can survive on your own very easily and of course your ingame alter ego doesn't have social needs, so players aren't forced to deal with that. They just get their survival gear from a supermarket, a gun from NWAF and start killing.

[...]

But what can be realistically done to curb the KoS issue? I proposed bandits requiring psychological drugs which non murderers dont require. A case of keeping the demons at bay' date=' so to speak.[/quote']

Interesting idea. This way killing would have permanent consequences and maybe would make people think twice about killing. The new "drug" (or similar "plot device") would take up valuable space in the inventory and of course would require the PKer to go on a lot more looting trips as he can't live off nature alone anymore. I don't know how realistic this is however. Maybe a killer that does not take his dose regularly could also have mental breakdowns, similar to being unconscious, but completely random.

But then again it is a game and if players want to kill randomly for no reason other than a laugh can we blame them? We have two factions here i think FPS players from the CoD' date=' B3 brigade and RPG/Simulation players. Both have different ideas on the game and both have valid reasons for their style of play. The two dont seem to mix.

[/quote']

I play both kinds of games, I just think especially with pulp elements like zombies, there's nothing like DayZ. Basing the whole zombie scenario on a sim engine like arma2 is genius and unique. If people want to shoot zombies I recommend they go back to CoD/L4D (I know, we're not supposed to say that, sorry.)

If they, as some PKers have stated, like thte thrill of being in engaged in a realistic firefight, they should play arma2 or project reality, games that actually concentrate on that aspect. We'll just have to see where rocket takes the game and eventually one or the other "group" will lose interest.

Until there is consequence (not penalty) in game nothing will change.

Yup' date=' good fro you to clarify that in the wording again. Consequences do not equal simple penalties.

[b']

came here' date=' didn't read, posted this.[/b']

Noted. :D

[teih 36]

Edit: This comment is no longer relevant.

[Specter911 2]

I have gotten other feedback and thought of new ideas of the blood idea, I am going to make a new thread and try to update it, here is current change, and I suggest you keep an eye out for my thread if you like what I am about to say.

The blood idea still stands, it is to a max of 20.

You will gain 1-3 blood to an up close kill depending on your weapon or how far away, or both, depends on limitations.

You will also gain 1 blood for looting a players corpse, only once though per body, but if everyone touches the corpse they gain 1 blood.

If you switch clothes you will lose a total of 5 blood, but it will remain on the clothes, so if you put it back on, it is readded.

The item that is rare as antibiotics would clean both you and your current clothes that you are wearing.

I must make that thread now can't forget this idea.

If its good enough, it will gain the attention it needs to reach someone higher.

[Knautscher 4]

I recommend that you change the name of the thread' date=' so more people will see it :)

I clicked on it out of boredom - not interest, because after seeing the name I expected nothing more than an immature anti-whine thread.

But boy was I positively surprised.

[/quote']

Is it more interesting now?

I have gotten other feedback and thought of new ideas of the blood idea' date=' I am going to make a new thread and try to update it, here is current change, and I suggest you keep an eye out for my thread if you like what I am about to say.

The blood idea still stands, it is to a max of 20.

You will gain 1-3 blood to an up close kill depending on your weapon or how far away, or both, depends on limitations.

You will also gain 1 blood for looting a players corpse, only once though per body, but if everyone touches the corpse they gain 1 blood.

If you switch clothes you will lose a total of 5 blood, but it will remain on the clothes, so if you put it back on, it is readded.

The item that is rare as antibiotics would clean both you and your current clothes that you are wearing.

I must make that thread now can't forget this idea.

If its good enough, it will gain the attention it needs to reach someone higher.

[/quote']

Hm yeah, could even be explained. I mean the whole looting thing. Other survivors might question where a certain survivor got this or that piece of equipment. Since Survivors would also gain your blood-stain-points from looting zombie victims there still is a relative uncertainty to the outer apperance, you can't instantly tell if they got their blood from looting a dead buddy or slicing that buddy up first.

However I don't know if it can be done, that the game engine detects a difference between ranged and close combat weapons, as afaik the hatchet is just a modded silenced pistol.

The super rare item could be soap. :D It's missing anyway...

[teih 36]

I recommend that you change the name of the thread' date=' so more people will see it :)

I clicked on it out of boredom - not interest, because after seeing the name I expected nothing more than an immature anti-whine thread.

But boy was I positively surprised.

[/quote']

Is it more interesting now?

Definitely.

[Wired 1]

Personally the Chernus map is too small for effective communities to form/social activities. With a much larger map(However more server resources, bleh) it would be a rare site to come across people who have blockaded off a hotel motel for their own use.

however in such a situation, it would be cool if a mechanic was set up where zombies would no longer spawn IN that general location, however they would spawn x distance from it and wander in....

[Specter911 2]

The super rare item could be soap. :D It's missing anyway...

Soap on a rope, there is a lack of females in this world...you never know who is watching.

Besides this it depends alot on what the developers can do, I will push them to the limit as I do not know their limits, but when I do I will downgrade my suggestions to their current level, then better them with higher suggestions from then on.

Aswell I thought the blood thing as a player only interaction, as you deal with zombies so much you would be at a 20 instantly, besides their blood is everywhere, but survivor blood is a rare thing to stumble upon.

[Wired 1]

The super rare item could be soap. :D It's missing anyway...

Soap on a rope' date=' there is a lack of females in this world...you never know who is watching.

Besides this it depends alot on what the developers can do, I will push them to the limit as I do not know their limits, but when I do I will downgrade my suggestions to their current level, then better them with higher suggestions from then on.

Aswell I thought the blood thing as a player only interaction, as you deal with zombies so much you would be at a 20 instantly, besides their blood is everywhere, but survivor blood is a rare thing to stumble upon.

[/quote']

I'd imagine infected blood would be...less healthy than the average starved survivor's blood

[Marsunpaisti 0]

Great post OP!

Personally I think that players do indeed need a negative effect for killing people but I still would like the game to have the large bandit groups but less solo "bandits" who just kill people with their snipers for their own amusement.

Thus I think the negative effects should indirectly be harsher to those who play solo, for example, attracting more zombies is bad for a solo player but a bandit group can easily handle them regardless. Or maybe the hand-shaking effect wouldnt be as bad with other players nearby.

[jovial 17]

I don't want to see any debuff for killing people. If anything, give us incentives to not shoot that guy we have in our sights, because the shot might attract 10 times more zombies, or roaming hordes. More and better zombies (ie, not glitchy motherfuckers you can however lose in builds, just killing machines with proper pathfinding and no wallhacks) will also have the effect of deterring solo PvP and encouraging, if not more teamwork, a bit more restraint.

Don't increase zombie numbers to the point where we have to counterzerg them with large groups though. Small scale PvP is where its at, we don't want to discourage that.

[Knautscher 4]

Well stress is a sort of "debuff" and a logical and natural one at that. It's a last-resort reaction to overstretch your abilities temporarily, but of course that backfires if you are under stress constantly, as you waste energy. Thinking about it, actually, maybe everyone should be a mess from the beginning, I mean: you're alone, there's zeds everywhere, you've lost your former life style, friends and family and you're not equipped to get anything done... That's pretty desperate. No one would handle a situation like this this way: "Oh a ruthless undead predator staring at me with his hollow eye sockets, while screaming and groaning. Meh, 'seen worse."

So going by that logic you shouldn't be able to stay perfectly calm from the beginning, it should take days, if not weeks, to adjust to your situation.

Maybe something similar to the system in "Amnesia", "Dark Corners Of The Earth" or "Eternal Darkness": experiencing horror (murder, zeds, infection, pain...) damages your psyche in various ways, which impairs your vision and at some point hurts you physically. You can increase your mental health by lighting a fire, or other "reassuring" actions including alcohol as temporary measure (including addiction and the disadvantages), drugs or maybe a "conversation" action or so, between players. There won't have to be hallucinations or crazy stuff like that as a punishment, just a basic and perceivable uneasyness in the player's character's movement and aim, that reflects their trouble coping with the situation.

Apart from that, I don't think adding more incentives to group play is going to solve anything. There's a lot of rewards from playing within a group already, but these rewards are just a bonus, the cherry on top. Right now you can survive on your own very easily, when it should not be that easy. It should be imperative for a survivor to try and find a group, not just "nice to have". Players should be, to a certain degree, dependent on other players as people are in real life.

[Private Poptarts 23]

+1

That was a real useful text and I hope the Dayz team get something out of it. But the problem is, how do we take bits of there and put it in the game?

Also, on offtopic, I think zombies now are too easy. They should be perheaps slightly slower than they are now, but much greater in numbers. This could encourage teamplay?

And the broken bones. I used to think it sucks, but now it's pretty good actually - it makes you feel something. Oh shit I broke my leg, oh shit no drugs oh shit should I start crawling or die?

I think you get the condition way too easy, but still. Easy fix; Make them slightly rarer, fix temporarily with splints (bandage+wood), re-enable running with morphine. Everyone's happy.

Just some random thoughts.

[MONKEYPAW 1]

I was in a situation a couple of days ago, where myself and another player started the tenuos dance of figuring out if each other was friendly..After a brief time we figured it out and i even gave him some needed painkillers. We went into a town and started scavenging.. I tend to be very stealthy and avoid Zombie contact, he was not as careful and we found ourself on a 12 / on 2 situation where he was not helping me take down zombies. I figure because he was conserving ammo.. After the z's were down he proceeds to scavenge nearly everything.. Needless to say I bolted and ditched him, as he put me in more danger than i cared to be in.. I get the feeling he was waiting for me to get taken down so he could scavenge me as well...

Point being..even if you find a friendly, are they always in your best interest??.... Ive been alive on my own for quite a while, I have had to kill two players that shot at me first(one with an ax).. Im wondering if there are any good players out there..I would love to play with other players, as the tension created by the came , surviving on your own, is actually kind of exausting..

[xX_fr0st-w0lf_Xx (DayZ) 343]

10/10

good read, true, to the point