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

[Necromunger 7]

Good read.

You are correct on all the arguments you made i could remember.

But making it harder/more annoying/punishing to kill other players is just another challenge for me.

Thus, PKing will never dull.

[Knautscher 4]

[...]

Also' date=' 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?

[/quote']

How would it encourage teamplay? Maybe like two players start a distraction so the village is safe to loot for the rest of the group? I do really think the zombie count should go way up, especially in the cities, but I don't see how this encourages team play. :huh:

And the broken bones. I used to think it sucks' date=' 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.

[/quote']

Stop-gap-measures would be great indeed. I once crawled from Orvolets to the hospital near Berezino to get morphine. The second I reached the medical supply crate I noticed a guy standing behind me in a ghillie suit with a sniper rifle. I didn't turn around, just said "hi". SPLAM. No morphine for me, instead a bullet to my head.

The thing is, he had no reason to leave me alive: ingame there's no empathy for people in need, there's nothing he could have wanted from me, so he just plain shot me. For the lulz, probably, because shooting a guy with a broken leg from 2 meters away isn't all that challenging.

Realistically he probably would have asked me for my valuables first, maybe force me to give up my tools or something, might even kill me afterwards, but definitely talk first.

There is no incentive to letting people live and that is a problem. It's not a military shooter where your main goal is to disable the enmies ability to fight, you don't have to achieve an objective other than keeping your character alive and happy. And that second part is currently replaced by killing out of boredom, when really it should be about saving your humanity in a time of despair.

[story]

Point being..even if you find a friendly' date=' 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..

[/quote']

That's exactly what I think to be adjusted. The tension comes from insecurity about your fellow players' motives. Right now you don't assume, no, you can TELL that everyone you meet is gonna fuck you over. That's why many KOS. It's a question of when. I think it'd be more interesting to have it a question of "if".

If killing had real life repercussions and groups would be necessary to survive, maybe this could change.

Survival has to become more than just a few clicks, it shouldn't just be the setup for yet another boring deathmatch game.

[BicE 0]

Started reading, saw massive wall of whine scrolled to bottom.

no tl;dr.

Lets just start implementing real emotions to the game and then implement sex, maybe even sex changes.

Lets have 9 month birth periods and marriages in game.

The game is working hard to be somewhat realistic and somewhat a sandbox, the original playerbase had the opportunity to make the game friendly.

No one forces anyone to kill anyone else, you still get huge benefits from teaming up with someone, aswell as you might get benefits from killing someone and taking their stuff, it's a decision you make from a neutral point and nothing in the game should force one of the sides to be more beneficial than the other.

The playerbase has developed the game into what it is.

The playerbase made the rules.

Don't change the true nature of the game and what it has become because the minority doesn't enjoy the way it turned out.

Simply accept that all games aren't suited for everyone.

[teih 36]

Started reading' date=' saw massive wall of whine scrolled to bottom.

no tl;dr.

[/quote']

Protip: Know what you're talking about and you won't come out as an ingorant fool (no offense).

In other words: read the post before you reply.

[BicE 0]

Actually, I wanted to come out as an ignorant fool because I believe that the OP is one and should be responded to in the same manner. That's a protip for you.

Also you might've found OPs post interesting but I did not, that doesn't mean that you're right and I'm wrong.

[Knautscher 4]

Started reading' date=' saw massive wall of whine scrolled to bottom.

no tl;dr.[/quote']

Hi.

Long attention spans do not seem to be your thing, but that is okay, it's the internet after all. If you look carefully at the opening post, you'll find that there is a tl;dr. Bold. And underlined. I'm thinking about coloring it though.

Hi.

[MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT]

Tl;dr - Guns in game might be realistic' date=' player behavior is not. If realism is to be achieved, something has to be done to address social-psychological aspects.[/u']

Lets just start implementing real emotions to the game and then implement sex' date=' maybe even sex changes.

Lets have 9 month birth periods and marriages in game.[/quote']

Nope, let's not. I can't blame you, since you didn't bother reading everything, but my point is about realism regarding the survivor, not about second lifeZ.

The game is working hard to be somewhat realistic and somewhat a sandbox' date=' the original playerbase had the opportunity to make the game friendly.

No one forces anyone to kill anyone else, you still get huge benefits from teaming up with someone, aswell as you might get benefits from killing someone and taking their stuff, it's a decision you make from a neutral point and nothing in the game should force one of the sides to be more beneficial than the other.

The playerbase has developed the game into what it is.

The playerbase made the rules.[/quote']

What about a realistic sandbox? What about reality? No one forces anyone to kill anyone, that is true, yet there's a shitload of killing going on ingame - why would that be? The problem is, that the benefits from teaming up are long-term by nature and marginal compared to the immediately effective and 100% positive effects of gunning down helpless players. This however is not realistic, as I have argued earlier.

Why isn't there this much killing in reality? It's not only laws and a police force that hold us back, but also our very nature. If realism is supposed to factor in, this should be addressed.

Without a psychological level DayZ could become just another shooter, when it could be so much more. In reality people do not shoot on sight, because they have a conscience and more varied motives than "MUST. GET. ORE. KILLS." This should be reflected.

Don't change the true nature of the game and what it has become because the minority doesn't enjoy the way it turned out.

Simply accept that all games aren't suited for everyone.

I'm not changing anything, you see, I can't. I'm just saying, that if everyone is bragging about their super realistic behavior in this near-realistic environment, there should be actual realism in there on all levels of survival, not just the weaponry.

To players who just like the realistic weaponry and overall control in DayZ I recommend playing Arma2 and even more Project Reality in both of it's forms. It's challenging, you get to kill a lot and it is highly rewarding without having to worry about zombies and supplies at all.

[BicE 0]

Indeed, my attention span is pretty short unless I get alot of action or interest, and I admit that. I know that there is a tl;dr my point by saying there wasn't any was that your tl;dr I'll paste it here:

"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."

Basically says nothing, no constructive solutions, no nothing, you basically just state what you think is wrong and leave it at that, what I'd call whine.

And to the second part about sandbox, Indeed, there's a huge risk compared to the benefit of teaming up with someone, but that's because the majority of players kill others. Because the playerbase made it that way.

If the majority would prefer to stay friendly and interact with each other the game would've developed that aspect of the game by itself.

And to where you say that the shitload of killing is unrealistic I disagree, hatred breeds hatred and as far into a zombie apocalypse as Dayz seems to be I'd imagine that most people would become insane from varius reasons. I guess we just disagree on that part since its impossible to tell what it would look like.

And to the part where you argue that it's not the law and police force that holds us back from murder, I somewhat disagree.

I believe that a huge part of what stops people from commiting murder(not talking about serial killers here) is the fear of the punishment after commiting it.

Now in the scenario that DayZ is in there seems to be no sort of law, police force or anything keeping people from murder apart from our very own nature.

I can't say that our nature does not take part in stopping us from slaughtering each other, obviously that's true to some extent.

However with all thats going on in a scenario DayZ shows I believe that the amount of murders going on is more than realistic.

I actually read your whole post now and sure you might not be changing anything, but then I come back to what I originally state with this post, your tl;dr does not actually contribute anything, but I guess nothing in your post actually did anyway so, maybe your tl;dr was accurate.

[Aeoneth 163]

A very good read and reinforces my own beliefs in how PvP should be "handled" in this game.

While your suggestions of shakier aim and such are also excellent consequences. I would wish to put forth an alternative...

Perhaps it would be possible to place bodies client side that run around and do other "survivor actions", but are not actually player controlled. Bandits would be free to "kill" them, but would recieve no loot for doing so and would reveal their position.

Perhaps it is too much a "penalty" but decoys such as these would allow a true survivor to blend in with a bandits views much more.

[Knautscher 4]

Thank you, for your elaborate reply.

Indeed' date=' my attention span is pretty short unless I get alot of action or interest, and I admit that. I know that there is a tl;dr my point by saying there wasn't any was that your tl;dr I'll paste it here:

"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."

Basically says nothing, no constructive solutions, no nothing, you basically just state what you think is wrong and leave it at that, what I'd call whine.[/quote']

What I mean by that is:

Player behavior is unrealistic in a game that aims to be realistic.

This should be fixed by implementing psychological effects.

Attempts at constructive solutions are thought to be both in my post as well as emerging from the thread.

And to the second part about sandbox' date=' Indeed, there's a huge risk compared to the benefit of teaming up with someone, but that's because the majority of players kill others. Because the playerbase made it that way.

If the majority would prefer to stay friendly and interact with each other the game would've developed that aspect of the game by itself.[/quote']

But you have to ask WHY they kill other players. The playerbase only went this direction because, other than in real life, there are no negative consequences to their actions in game, so of course they kill all the time and trust no one. They also Alt+F4. People have adjusted to the situation their given, as they always do. That does not mean that it should stay this way or is great. There is room for improvement.

And to where you say that the shitload of killing is unrealistic I disagree' date=' hatred breeds hatred and as far into a zombie apocalypse as Dayz seems to be I'd imagine that most people would become insane from varius reasons. I guess we just disagree on that part since its impossible to tell what it would look like.[/quote']

Might just be the case. I do imagine that there would be initial riots during the breakdown of society, the ususal looting, rape and murder. But what after that? There's extremely few people left, people that have witnessed and survived what happened before. I think they would try to make contact with other survivors rather than gun them down on first sight, but as you rightly said: its impossible to tell what it would look like.

And to the part where you argue that it's not the law and police force that holds us back from murder' date=' I somewhat disagree.

I believe that a huge part of what stops people from commiting murder(not talking about serial killers here) is the fear of the punishment after commiting it.

Now in the scenario that DayZ is in there seems to be no sort of law, police force or anything keeping people from murder apart from our very own nature.

I can't say that our nature does not take part in stopping us from slaughtering each other, obviously that's true to some extent.

However with all thats going on in a scenario DayZ shows I believe that the amount of murders going on is more than realistic.[/quote']

But what is this punishment? To a certain degree its being robbed of your freedom, but mostly you now are an outcast, you don belong anymore. And that is a major drive of human behavior. So while the threshold might be lower to kill, I still oppose the idea that people would kill on sight. Yeah, they sure might end an argument a little earlier than usual with a few bullets, but first they'd have that argument. And this does not happen ingame, when it should.

People are too trigger happy. The decision is simple: kill everyone you meet. This is the most effective way to play the game, but it is not realistic, due to the reasons I gave in the first post.

I actually read your whole post now and sure you might not be changing anything' date=' but then I come back to what I originally state with this post, your tl;dr does not actually contribute anything, but I guess nothing in your post actually did anyway so, maybe your tl;dr was accurate.

[/quote']

I'm sorry you did not understand my post as it was intended to be understood. I posted this, because I wanted to check back with other players how they felt about this issue and to maybe work out new concepts to be implemented in the game for an overall improvement of the experience.

[StealthyBrayden 6]

One word: Beautiful!

[sidwulf 69]

As long as the infected and survivors stay at roughly the same threat level the game should naturally balance out. No need for mechanics to discourage PVP when the infected are already an indirect solution.

[BicE 0]

Well, it's clear that we disagree with what realistic would look like in a DayZ real life scenario, I guess thats why some people like the game for what it is and some think it needs adjustment.

Anyways, I'm gonna be playing and probably wont revisit this thread again.

Thanks for a decent discussion

[fml 29]

wow! no negative replies or competent debates against your original post. I guess this whole time I was trying to convey this matter, I should've explained every last detail and point so that "they" could understand a bit better.

[Etabubu 0]

Hi Knautscher,

fantastic post and thread, probably one of the few worth reading here.

I agree with basically everything you said and, as someone else already mentioned, I'm convinced that the game is currently played in this way because people adapted to it and not because it was meant to be like this. Rocket has probably no idea what every new feature he adds will cause in game. Players just make the best of it, they "exploit" it.

I'd like to point out a few things though. I've been thinking about it for a while. Maybe you want to take them in consideration and try to "insert" them in your analysis.

I really like the idea of this game trying to be as realistic as possible, under all aspects:

- physical (you have a body, you have to take care of it)

- psychological/emotional (basically what you explained)

- tactical (the fighting, both zeds and PvP, the use of weapons, basically Arma2)

Some of those aspects are already implemented, others need a lot of work. But there's one aspect which I think has been completely ignored: the environment.

I'll try to explain, bear with me.

When Rocket created the first version of this mod, he basically took one of the maps used in Arma2 and modified it a bit, adding spawn locations and resources. That makes perfectly sense... to create a new map from scratch would have taken ages.

The problem is in the "spawning" of resources itself. Think about it... it's probably the most UNREALISTIC thing ever. The whole game tries so hard to be realistic in many details, but fails in this simple thing. Food magically spawns everywhere? What? THINGS spawn magically... and even worse... WEAPONS AND AMMO.

That's not a realistic scenario. Not even close.

I know, I know. Of course Rocket used this classic game mechanic, otherwise there would be no game.

But the game now exists and it's going under big changes and I think the devteam should start thinking about this aspect.

If realism and social interaction are the main ideas behind this concept, then I would suggest to implement "crafting/producing". No, not like in Minecraft.

For instance, take the issue with food. Hunting animals is perfect and makes perfect sense. But why not being able to restore a farm and make it produce food again?

Or take the even more interesting case of weapons and ammo. You want that super-duper sniper rifle? Sure, but you need to make that factory work again. That means collecting primary resources, restoring electric power and have a certain number of people performing specific tasks.

This won't stop PKilling or bandits or whatever. Nobody wants to stop that. You want to kill on sight? Fine, but now your ammo is REAL. Once you shot, it's GONE. It's not gonna respawn in a barn thanks to some invisible god. You need to buy it from people who know how to produce it, or you can try to steal it. That's risky, but hey, you're badass, right?

I know very well this is the tip of an iceberg and it would take a long time and huge effort to implement this kind of features, but it would also open up so many different game styles without ruining the game for anyone. It would be an even more interesting social experiment and it would for sure encourage teamwork.

I'm not gonna go into details of these mechanics, I have enough work in my daily job as a game designer/programmer. I'm just suggesting a direction DayZ could follow.

Ok, I'll stop here, anyone is welcome to discuss these ideas! Or ignore them :)

[Private Poptarts 23]

[...]

Also' date=' 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?

[/quote']

How would it encourage teamplay? Maybe like two players start a distraction so the village is safe to loot for the rest of the group? I do really think the zombie count should go way up, especially in the cities, but I don't see how this encourages team play. :huh:

That would be a way, distract the zombos and I imagine that if they were more in numbers, especially in cities, you probably wouldn't be able to go and loot it all by yourself, but would feel free to try. So this would create a need for teamwork. And for the KoS -matter, if there's more zombies especially in cities firing a gun would be quite risky and make the shooter think twice.

Not sure how that would translate to in-game, how it would work in practice.

And for the zombie amount matter, check the thread by sw1ch here http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3420&page=2 . I think it has some good points - dynamicism is needed in this game, and it would hopefully reduce the amount of "I like to kill newbs out of boredom lulz"

[Techercizer 82]

Excellent post OP; your English is better than the majority of the threads I have read on these forums, and your capacity to adequately explain yourself in it is something we rarely witness here.

I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I don't think these issues only pertain to realism though; I feel they are applicable directly to the ability of Day Z to provide opportunities for emergent gameplay. I don't know how these problems could be appropriately addressed, and I don't believe your tentative suggestions of reduced stamina or difficulty aiming will solve the issue in a fitting way; I do, however, have a clear awareness of what needs to be done and why. That's a good start.

Sigging over current link.

[Cyric (DayZ) 254]

Your reward? A bump. :D

[Dr. Fever 7]

Good post up there at the beginning!

[n4ndoz 20]

Holy...

Found this thread all of a sudden and decided to give it a chance.

Really awesome. The way the interactions on the game were exposed, man... really good.

Great post. You should make a Paper from this!! lololol (a friend of mine did, years ago, about WoW/Virology)

Well said.

But...

THe problem is that DayZ is just a Game. Ppl usually won't "role play" a Zombie apocalypse survivor because even if they feel anything when killing a char, they know that they are only killing a char. The experience that this game delivers to the player, at least for me, is immersive. But not enough to make you feel repenant when killing a innocent.

I remember when I started playing this game. There were 2 situations that made keep my "faith on players". In one, while unarmed, at night, I found a player, flashed my flashlight for him, and we walked together scavenging for some miles, and then each one wished good luck to the other and we followed opposite ways.

The other one was at Balota's airport, maybe the most intense experience for me. I respawned at the Control Tower and heard flies. Asked on mic if there was anybody there, non response, all of a sudden I hear some movement, and told the person I was Friendly(as I always am), he lied, I got the hell out of there. Just at the door, was coming another player with a AKM(I was with a CZ with only 1 round) I screamed: Im friendly. He did the same and didn't shoot!!! Man, this was amazing. Unfortunattly, I got the hell out of there alive, and told the guy I found at the door that there was a propably hostile player at there, when I was far enough I hear the gunshots. I felt sad for what could be happening at there, but didn't came back. I remember that I kept thinking about that moment for a week or so.

What I'm trying to say is that if the players do not play this game looking for a simulation, a real simulation of a Zombie Apocalypse. THey won't experience such a moment, they will only be players, PK's, MMO farmers that search for ever to be the guy with the best stuff.

As you said, OP, this game isn't meant for killing spreas, massacres etc. It is mean to be fun by simulating a real apocaliptical enviroment, by giving players some of the most unique experiences we can ever live, the interaction of Human beings on a very hostile enviroment. And this can only be achieved by all of us when ppl stop playing this only to kill, or to farm items, but to live each day more, to make you way through a Zombie Apocalypse.

[v3c1c 86]

But...

THe problem is that DayZ is just a Game. Ppl usually won't "role play" a Zombie apocalypse survivor because even if they feel anything when killing a char' date=' they know that they are only killing a char. The experience that this game delivers to the player, at least for me, is immersive. But not enough to make you feel repenant when killing a innocent.

[/quote']

well atleast for me this is only game were killing is making me feel as I am doing something wrong - something what should not be done, and making me feel sorry about what i just did....

when some one kills me - yeah feelings are close to same I had in BF3/COD

[n4ndoz 20]

One more addition.

I think a great solution to it is to add some psychologic states to players that kill another player.

For example:

If you kill 5 player in a short period of time you become paranoid for some time. But the implementation of it would become in form of ilusions(sometimes auditory or visual) that would be cured through time(maybe a day or 2 /real time, not game time) depending on the quantity of kills. And if you keep killing this time counter increases.

Imagine what it's like being in the middle of the forest, a paranoid guy, hearing footsteps, seeing dark silhouettes walking around.

Surely any lone survivor would shit his pants experiencing something like that. I would! But it is the reallity anyway.

(I think I will post it at the suggestion threads!!!)

p.s.: sorry for my english.

[wufnu 0]

Great post; sums my thoughts exactly.

Now if we could only find a way to convert people whose only joy in DayZ is hiding in the bushes, shooting some nub that didn't even know they were there in order to get their panties a little moist, into interactive DayZ players... you don't have to team up with me but some communication would be nice. I have a feeling that, even if we could, as soon as their psuedo-god mode is gone they'll flee to some other form of ePeen viagra.

[Undeadsteak 16]

Lol. To the individual claiming Day Z is an accurate representation of a zombie scenario; you're nuts. Working in a group is always more advantageous. Bandit groups would exist and thrive. Sole bandits would not. And that's pretty realistic anyways. Different groups of humans warring against each other with their own self-interest in mind has made up most of the world's history. The key word being groups. Lone wolf mentality is silly. Most people would much rather team up with a guy with a gun and accomplish things as a group than try to shoot him. This is a game. People like the adrenaline rush from the PvP. I certainly do. If this was my actual life, fuck no I wouldn't be engaging in firefights for fun. And anyways, you'd probably be more likely to kill a guy over his beans than over his gun in real life. Nobody would go, "Oh, a better sniper rifle. Let's take him out."

[n4ndoz 20]

Lol. To the individual claiming Day Z is an accurate representation of a zombie scenario; you're nuts. Working in a group is always more advantageous. Bandit groups would exist and thrive. Sole bandits would not. And that's pretty realistic anyways. Different groups of humans warring against each other with their own self-interest in mind has made up most of the world's history. The key word being groups. Lone wolf mentality is silly. Most people would much rather team up with a guy with a gun and accomplish things as a group than try to shoot him. This is a game. People like the adrenaline rush from the PvP. I certainly do. If this was my actual life' date=' fuck no I wouldn't be engaging in firefights for fun. And anyways, you'd probably be more likely to kill a guy over his beans than over his gun in real life. Nobody would go, "Oh, a better sniper rifle. Let's take him out."

[/quote']

Naaaaaah... Ppl aren't nuts.

At least I am not.

I am just defending my oppinion, bud.

Even rocket said that this game was meant to be a simulation, a reallistic one, of a Zombie Apocalypse, aswell as Arma2 is a reallistic simulation of Army's situations. Im not telling anyone to play the way I play, but this game isn't a deathmatch, just like it is becoming right now. In some servers the game is more like Deer Hunter, where a few well armed guys go hunt other players through the major cities.

[clever 12]

Great post OP, looked professional and actually supported with common sense.

See, the way I look at it is that the only way to promote more team-play and make it so people just don't shoot on sight is to make the game a hell of a lot tougher and providing more items like the bloodpack. By that I mean items that serve a benefit to a player, but another player must use it on that character. I honestly have no idea what that would be though honestly. I don't think giving penalties for killing people would be the way to go, since I think it could be justified that the people who go around killing people on sight or even "For Fun" are perhaps sociopaths or insane people. The only way that penalties for killing people would seem alright if it applied to both sides, since even if you know that the person you killed is a "Bad Guy" there will still be psychological problems knowing that you could a living person.