The theory of everything

[Vattenlarv 81]

This is quite a read. I think I have kept it interesting and relevant, without too much bullshit, so give it a shot!

 

From what I have gathered, browsing forums and commentaries, the main complaints and discussions about DayZ Standalone are;

 

• Killing on sight

 

• The infected

 

• Not enough content for PVE

 

• Weather hazards

 

• Loot economy

 

 

 

The last three are IMO just frustration. Frustration because the environment is not compelling or challenging enough. The actual complaints about loot, weather and game content are just subconscious misinterpretations. Let me elaborate;

 

If the act of looting itself does not excite you, the only reward for looting is finding good loot. This leads to boredom and frustration when loot is scarce or when you do not find the wanted, or needed items. DayZ should not be about the loot you expect or want to find, it should be about adapting to your situation - surviving. The act of looting, or as a true survivalist - crafting, which is a constantly ongoing necessity to survive, has to excite and offer more than just that.

The hazards of rain and cold weather does play a part here. But after a while, players will only find "the know how and elbow grease" of staying dry, until you can continue looting, extremely tedious. Instead of bringing excitement to the task at hand, it only prolongs the inevitable and expected result of finding loot.

 

Add more interesting loot, crafting, and ways of protecting yourself against the harsh climate of Chernarus, you say?

More content would interest both seasoned and new players, but only for a limited amount of time. Once you have put up your first bush craft shelter, looked at it in admiration and shared the print screen, it will serve no more purpose than a camouflaged tent. It wouldn't take long until complaints about lack of content start pouring in again.

 

This is why the infected is such a vital part of the game, right? They add that little extra excitement, fear and fun! 

No, they don't. Once you have figured them out, and you know how to use the mechanics of the game to not be particularly concerned about their presence, they are nothing more than a nuisance, just adding more frustration to the looting procedure. However, they do give away your position to other players. Which leads us to the big bad wolf; Killing on sight.

 

 

I am going to take a little detour here, please stay with me. 

 

Since the invasion of Iraq back in 2003 I have been very interested in war. What has interested me the most has not been the advances in weaponry and strategy, but the psychology of war. Foremost why so many young soldiers in war zones are capable of purposeless killing. 

Simply put, judging by online lectures and articles I have read over the years, boredom and frustration is the main reason why e.g. a young soldier can shoot an innocent civilian on a bicycle in the back and not feel the least bit remorseful. These senseless killings often take place in less hostile areas. Young men (they are mostly men) have, since enlistment, been riled up about going to war. They expect, and want, war. When they don't get it (let's say they're put on guard in a relatively non-hostile area), they take their boredom and frustration out on civilians. Again, simply put (there is A LOT more to it of course, e.g. misguided retaliation). 

 

 

Back to the topic!

 

To solve a problem, we first need to understand the problem. Why do so many players kill on sight? 

There isn't a simple answer to this question. Some probably just do it for fun. Some might be nervous by nature and very easily feel cornered and therefore kill on sight out of pure self-preservation. In these cases there is not much the game can do to encourage a different action.

 

However, I do not think that most players that do kill on sight, at the current state of the game, (deep down) really want to kill everyone they encounter. I think they are experiencing the same boredom and frustration soldiers in real life sometimes do. They expected an exciting, exhilarating game where they would have to survive the elements, fight off "zombies", encounter groups of either bandits or heroes, and the occasional lone survivor where anything could happen.

What they got was a 13 square kilometer big map that they could cross in less than 35 minutes. Effortlessly outrunning zombies, A-D-A-D themselves to safety when being shot at, server hopping to gear up faster etc. The one and only thing to do that is somewhat thrilling at this point is killing.

 

-

 

To all of you who have read my previous recent posts, I think you know where this is going, and some of you might even think; "This guy again with his stamina and weight system, and inertia. What a drag". I don't really care, because I am 100% convinced this is the only way to save this game and have it reach its full potential. I am not going to complain about 3rd person, even tho I think it is an absolute destroyer of games, because I know it is here to stay.

If you are wondering what the hell I am talking about, have a look here and it will be explained to you in full detail; The Lonely Bandit's derailed thread

 

Furthermore, movement- and wear & tear penalty when walking/jogging/sprinting on different surfaces is an absolute must. It should be less exhausting, faster and less wearing on footwear to travel by road, path or meadow than through the woods, up and down slopes and on rock formations. 

Predators could also be more prone to attack players moving around in woodland areas or high grass, but this aggression could be evaded by calm and collected movement.

 

With a system like this implemented; 

 

- survivalists would have practical reason, out of a risk- and safety point of view, to stay in the woods. Only occasionally would a stealthy, high risk looting mission in the nearby village be necessary. Just crossing a big meadow could lead to disaster, so maybe a nearby tree-line is a better choice, even though it is an extra 300-400 meters to travel. Also, the probability of a wood dweller running into a like-minded fellow survivalist in the woods would be much greater than running into a psycho murderer.

 

- psychos and degenerates would, just like in real life, congregate in urban environments and would probably feel very out of place in the woods, probably a little scared even. This would also give the larger cities a scary feel for survivalists, as they'd know there would probably be some messed up shit going on in there.

 

- I think bandits would turn in to scavenger type players. Since bandits are not psychopathic murderers, but more role players giving their victims a frightening experience, they would need to travel in groups because on their own the risk of getting hurt when acting hostile, or trying to rob someone, would be much greater. They would also have to loot or craft to survive, just like everyone else, and as they are looking for interactions they can appear anywhere on the map, and their actions would be unpredictable. 

 

- anyone can be a hero. If you and a couple of friends run in to a friendly survivalist and he tells you he got robbed by a couple of bandits not more than 10 minutes ago, you could actually use your knowledge of the area, the map and your common sense to have an idea of where the bandits might have headed to (as the environment prevents them from being 4-5 kilometers away already). Hunt them down and return the stolen hunting rifle to the survivalist. Mission completed!

 

- hardcore, military gear, combat tactical, seasoned players looking for an adrenaline rushing shoot-out would be able to take advantage of all these elements. At the same time, I do not think they would be as prone to instigate shoot-outs or kill on sight, as they understand the hardship everybody's going through. It would also be a feat and adventure to acquire full military gear, and someone who has taken his time doing so would not risk it all on killing bambis, giving away their position. The classic PVP areas of the map will still be their go to areas for combat, and the rest of us would know to stay the hell out of there.

 

 

As much content the developers could ever muster to create, all the loot economy balancing they could ever care to spend time on, or all the updated graphics and real-time weather events they could code in a decade or two... all of that wouldn't even have "a fart in space"-significance to enhance game play and create a more genuine experience, compared to just making player movement and the environment's effect on player movement more true to real life.

 

 

End; This is my last attempt to raise this idea of what I believe is absolutely pivotal to the success and survival of this game. I will bump this thread every now and then when it goes dead, as this will be my one and only domain here in the DayZ forum. 

If you read the whole thing, thank you for your time. If you didn't and decide to take one or two paragraphs out of context and comment on that alone, I will not bother to answer. My point is thoroughly expressed, and shouldn't require further explanation.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Vattenlarv

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

I give all of this all four thumbs up and parts of the above have been the content of my prayers ever since I spawned for my first time in Dolina. The only issue is - where are the gods we pray to? I don't even know if the devs read these forums or care about the players' input and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the didn't, considering the fuckloads of shit they get virtually every day.

Can someone tell us if the final version is something already on a drawing board or is it still just a vague concept? I read every now and then how the end result will be a 'deadly survival experience', with harsh conditions etc., but these words can mean anything. I read status reports only occasionally but I've never seen the devs address the main and real issues like the pointlessness of interactions (survival-wise, at least), less-than-fascinating looting experience, etc. Like the OP said, you can add millions of features like vehicles, scripted events or fancy graphics, and this all can still mean squat for the gameplay - in the end, boys will loot and then go die at Cherno/NWAF/Tisy. Taking down everyone encountered with them.

Re: the psychology of war - just yesterday a friend of mine was attacked/KOsed three times in Elektro and Bere, all by freshies with fists or screwdrivers. No, it didn't feel dangerous or exciting, don't teach me with a smug smile how dodgy Chernarus is. Rather, it felt like my friend could have a more interesting interaction with a voice-activated Google service and I mean it literally. Nothing what I followed in the development seemed like be designed to address this issue at least in a small and partial way.

These are all very legit concerns so don't you alpha me, because like said above, no amounts of base building and choppers will ever solve this issue. It seems I'm not the only one concerned with the development. The other day one dev told me 'the first priorities are not the first deliverables'. Fine, but what are actually the priorities? Where can we read about that or even reach the devs themselves?

Let me start with a simple question - is the 'berserk bambie' strategy fine with people responsible for the development? Do you just 'hope' it will go away when you add more stuff and what's your plan B if it doesn't?

 

 

[sneakydude 480]

I skimmed, and i agree.

It will be the nature of these games in the future, it will take a crap load of stuff to keep us occupied. And if games like MMO's cant do it? other then EQ and WOW then i see no future in lower end MMO games like Conan, ark

just saying, it takes a lot to keep us busy.

 

Only so many can's of beans will keep us busy, and most of all, we already played the game.

 

I still like Dayz though....

 

[BIIdiots 5]

Your are talking to a large majority of snowflake types.  The probably want a point and click game, and autoaim for their controllers.

Your analysis is way off.  Conclusions faulty, and plain irresponsible.  Implying all soldiers that are bored would shoot an innocent in the back is beyond stupid.  And only shows your mentality as being deviant and missing the point.  Political correctness servers no purpose in war other than to prolong the suffering.   More than likely that soldier watched several so called innocents blow up half his squad while using a baby as cover or some other barbaric act.  The immorality of the enemy leads to most of these incidents and nothing more.  Political correctness is just a scam to nullify the truth.

[gannon46 788]

I have been waiting on stamina and weight since they announced. I too believe it will change the game in a positive way.

[Vattenlarv 81]

I said I wasn't going to respond to out of context quoted paragraphs, but I have to on this one.

1 hour ago, BIIdiots said:

Your analysis is way off.  Conclusions faulty, and plain irresponsible.  Implying all soldiers that are bored would shoot an innocent in the back is beyond stupid.  And only shows your mentality as being deviant and missing the point.  Political correctness servers no purpose in war other than to prolong the suffering.   More than likely that soldier watched several so called innocents blow up half his squad while using a baby as cover or some other barbaric act.  The immorality of the enemy leads to most of these incidents and nothing more.  Political correctness is just a scam to nullify the truth.

Mate... "Again, simply put (there is A LOT more to it of course, e.g. misguided retaliation)." 

I have not done nothing other than putting a clear disclaimer on my statement; "judging by online lectures and articles I have read over the years", and then expressed my conclusion. I think you should go flaming at e.g. Veterans Against The War, Sebastian Junger and BBC among many others.

That'd be all. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Vattenlarv

[pilgrim* 3514]

15 hours ago, BIIdiots said:

Your are talking to a large majority of snowflake types.

First time I heard that term on this forum, is it common outside political rants?  You got snowflakes on your jackboots?  etc  -  Whichever way you look at it friend, as Kant said "There is only one space".

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

22 hours ago, pilgrim* said:

First time I heard that term on this forum, is it common outside political rants?  You got snowflakes on your jackboots?  etc  -  Whichever way you look at it friend, as Kant said "There is only one space".

Let's now allow this thread to derail into a Youtube flame, ok? Let's stick to the libtard agenda of bringing meaning to Chernarus encounters.

Does anyone know if the devs commented on how they imagine end game interactions? Do they consider a light-hearded Elektro screwdriver KOS-ing a thing or an issue? To put in it other words, do they want to keep the players who drive other players away from the game?

[pilgrim* 3514]

3 hours ago, Kirov (DayZ) said:

Does anyone know if the devs commented on how they imagine end game interactions?

"DayZ is a gritty, authentic, open-world survival horror hybrid-MMO game, in which players follow a single goal: to survive in the harsh post-apocalyptic landscape as long as they can. Players can live through powerful events and emotions arising from the ever-evolving emergent gameplay."

There is only one space. [Kant]  This seems to fit.

xxx

[Vattenlarv 81]

On 6/18/2017 at 3:23 PM, pilgrim* said:

"DayZ is a gritty, authentic, open-world survival horror hybrid-MMO game, in which players follow a single goal: to survive in the harsh post-apocalyptic landscape as long as they can. Players can live through powerful events and emotions arising from the ever-evolving emergent gameplay."

Gritty in the same way a movie would be gritty, I suppose. Urban Dictionary; "harsh, coarse, rough and unrefined, as in film depictions that portray life as it truly is, without false distortions, stylizations, or idealizations. Often, the realism is exaggerated such that the culture or society being portrayed appears more coarse than it really is." Gritty? Far from it. 

Authentic how, I wonder. There are so many meanings to the word, and what the author of this description does mean is unclear. Free Dictionary; adj.1. genuine; real. Google; "based on facts; accurate or reliable. an authentic depiction of the situation". Definitely not one of these examples, which are the only ones I could find that could possibly be used to describe a video game.

 

Survival horror hybrid. Hmm..

Survival according to Google; "the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances." Dictionary.com; "the act or fact of surviving, especially under adverse or unusual circumstances."

This one I can not take away from DayZ. Not getting shot, try not to glitch out of a staircase and fall to your death, hope that your vehicle does not randomly lose all gravitational properties or that an infected beats you to death while spawning and waiting for the game-world to load, run full speed for 30 minutes through a rural Russian landscape to not die from hypothermia, while looting and avoiding death by other survivors, infected and wolves (all at the same time)... all of these do technically qualify as "surviving". 

Horror? Oh, they mean the horror of dodging hordes of infected like your playing Space Invaders? Maybe they are referring to the most aggressive packs of wolfs of all time? We have all seen how poorly wildlife is thriving in areas where human activity is minimal, right? I mean the lack of natural prey must be really strenuous on the poor wolves, and that is why they're attacking humans like it's in their everyday routine. Authenticity at its finest.

 

"Players can live through powerful events and emotions arising from the ever-evolving emergent gameplay."

This right here is the main problem. Gameplay does not evolve whatsoever. More content is added, graphics are updated, animations and sounds are improved. Gameplay does not evolve, it is merely spiced up. It is the same run n gun game it has been since day one of alpha release. 

 

The concern here is whether or not the devs will make the necessary changes to turn this game in to what they claim it is (or going to be at release). It is not an impossible task. They have a really good foundation of a beautiful landscape, a fair amount of content and a large player base.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Vattenlarv

[pilgrim* 3514]

On 16/06/2017 at 0:35 PM, Vattenlarv said:

..//.. stamina and weight system, and inertia.

..//.. movement- and wear & tear penalty when walking/jogging/sprinting on different surfaces is an absolute must. It should be less exhausting, faster and less wearing on footwear to travel by road, path or meadow than through the woods, up and down slopes and on rock formations. 

Predators could also be more prone to attack players moving around in woodland areas or high grass, but this aggression could be evaded by calm and collected movement.

..//..

These three points are perfectly sensible and could be introduced into the game. I would enjoy that. However, they are the practical suggestions you put forward claiming they would change the game-attitude of all players and reduce "boredom" and reduce KoS. This hypothesis has no logical structure. It does not follow.

Note: The introduction of persistence and the introduction of private hives have of course changed DayZ gameplay radically - for every individual player -  since DayZ's first public formulation. This cannot be questioned.

So, a couple of points: (this is not my "opinion"- which would be long and boring - these are simple observations):

1 ) tedium  
- In real world "survival" every manual will point out that boredom is a killer, if you become prey to boredom you will not survive. You personally must have the will and the attitude to avoid boredom.  So we could argue that boredom is an important gameplay element in any survial-oriented game, and avoiding boredom by your own actions, your creativity and attitude is one of the objectives of the game. This is perfectly standard survival technique. It is also standard open-gameplay technique. Should it not be included in DayZ? In so much as DayZ is "realistic" it will be present, and will pose a threat for the player to avoid.
I can name long-term players (on this forum) who are skilled survivors and adept at avoiding boredom. This is quite distinct from how aggressive they are towards other players.

2 ) KoS
- the <quotes> below are from  "The Utility of Force" - by Rupert Smith, who is extremely well placed to understand the problem, [General Sir Rupert Anthony Smith, KCB, DSO & Bar, OBE, QGM] check him out on Wikipedia.

*
< I had failed to realize that my enemy had a free, creative mind and was not thinking nor was going to think like me. >

- you do acknowledge that you have a personal enemy in the game that you identify as "KoS players, bored". You do not like them. You describe their action and you 'suppose' their motivation.

I myself am suspicious of any fully kitted out military-equipment player. Frankly I do not like them (I am not prepared to say why) and may well KoS them without compunction, or if they are one of a "team" I may attempt to work round and KoS their 'oversight', then attempt escape. This is not because I am "bored".

 < A regular force is legal, deadly and destructive > [-I note that even in peace, bearing weapons very directly implies the use of weapons -].
< An irregular force can be as deadly and destructive, but operates outside the state, and therefore outside the laws of that state. Irregular forces range from the gangs of organized crime through resistance and terrorist organizations to guerrilla forces and even some structured as armies, such as the Vietcong. >

In DayZ there is no state - the fundamental premise is that both international law and the rules of the state have broken down. There is no longer any such law. There is NO "regular" force because there is no state. This is the starting point for the DayZ game. There is 'de facto' no consensus on "moral high ground".

Three or four "street people" can if they are clever, kill a fully armed 'soldier' with screwdrivers, and get away with it. This is a breakdown of order. These players may be doing this for kicks, for profit, or because they are being silly, or because they have discovered an organized terror tactic that works - You must therefore realize that other players may be your enemy:

<"because they have a free, creative mind and are not thinking and not going to think, like you".  

If their shoes wear out fast they may concentrate their attacks on players who have good footwear. For several centuries in the real world, stealing the boots off an enemy, a corpse, or prisoner (or friend) has been a widely recognize aspect of survival, combat, & self-interest. The boots are worth more than the living person/player who is wearing them. This is a simple calculation of interest. Other players might like to ask for the boots. And yet other players may fear men in boots. 

Effectively my dislike of "military groups" could identify me as a 'redneck loony' or as 'resistance' or a 'jihadi' - depending on your point of view (not on mine).  DayZ carefully does NOT tell you what point of view you must have. There is no rule of law here. You decide your moral PoV for yourself and you are free to change it. From Spawn to Death you make your own way through the game and your experience is defined by your actions and interactions. You judge and are judged. You may reject the judgement of others. There is no moral consensus inside the game - this is it's nature.   

< This problem of identifying the regularity of a force applies to the vast majority of our conflicts today, and it is one the international community has yet to grapple with coherently. >

It seems that some DayZ players are also grappling with this 'conflict/community' problem as far as it is mirrored & represented in the DayZ game. The real world (itself) has not dealt with this problem coherently. Should a group of software engineers impose their world solution on this "stateless" game?  To be ironic - would you prefer a Nicaraguan solution, or a N Korean solution? Or a European solution with policemen and courts? The game solution chosen is "there is no law or state". This is neither accidental nor due to a lack of attention. It is fundamental to DayZ.

< since the end of the Cold War public discourse on military matters has mostly been relegated to debates on [defence budgets and]—the legality and morality of the use of force—whilst discussion of the actual meaning of force, and its utility, has become nearly obsolete.>

To establish a rule of law or a "state" inside the DayZ game territory you - the player - must impose it yourself, based on your own morality, either by force or by peaceful discussion or by leading by example. If this were not the case DayZ would be considerably less realistic, given that discussion of "the legality and morality of use of force" is widespread in the REAL world, and an acceptable world solution has not been found.

*
Hope that has been helpful or at least interesting, as a general comment on your line of thought.

p.s.
I think I can show why there cannot be what is often misnamed an <endgame> in DayZ unless YOU define what YOUR own objectives are in this game. Whatever your specific "endgame" proposal, the majority of players will (statistically) have other very different ideas.
DayZ is DEIGNED NOT to give you a readymade endgame that you MUST go to. That is it's specific aim. However to demonstrate this would require a "long" general (beginners) game-theory argument which most players would find uninteresting, "boring", probably irritating, because "endgame" is not an entity in the DayZ structure. - you can have the argument if you want it, but I think most will not -

xxx pilgrim

Edited June 19, 2017 by pilgrim*

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

16 hours ago, pilgrim* said:

 You must therefore realize that other players may be your enemy:

"because they have a free, creative mind and are not thinking and not going to think, like you". 

 

Pilgrim, I know and appreciate your input on this site, and I think you're tad overthinking this. We above, like so many other Dayz players I talked to, are not concerned that Chernarus is a dangerous place full of well-armed people with various agendas. Trust me, I want this realm to stay that way. The problem is not action-oriented guys or even trigger-happy bandits, but rather people who drive other players away by bringing nothing more than the same kind of interactions which you usually have with the zeds.

I have no doubt that you've played enough to meet your share of such folks and you know better than to go full Sun Tzu on their motivations. If a 13yo kid with a squeaky voice teabags you, it's not because he follows the Path of Black Mamba, and neither Nicaragua nor N Korea have nothing to do with it. He's just bored to death and DayZ perfectly accommodates his "gameplay" and does not penalize stupid behaviour (in the way we are talking about here). I'm putting "gameplay" in quotes because I'm just tired of pretending that a game, any game, can truly accommodate all possible approaches in one setting. This is bullshit. What the people who bludgeon your bambi do is the equivalent of your 6yo nephew whom you're trying to teach the chess but who just throws the pieces at you and insists that it's "fun". No, it's not, not for adults anyway.

Let's stop pretending that a guy who takes a dump on your gaming evening brings some variety to this game. He's essentially a human equivalent of a wi-fi failure. I repeat, I have no problem whatsoever with meeting dangerous people who are after my loot or just prefer to dispose of me as a potential threat. But too many players follow literally the same script as the zeds - attack everything that moves, under any conditions. I'm not fed up with being sent back to the coast, I'm fed up with being bored to death by people who lack essential imagination. It's an irony that people who impersonate the survivors already behave like zombified.

Play the chess, be super aggressive, just stop pissing on my queen, man.

[Vattenlarv 81]

On 6/19/2017 at 6:49 PM, pilgrim* said:

Hope that has been helpful or at least interesting, as a general comment on your line of thought.

Pilgrim, I do appreciate your post. It was a good read!

10 hours ago, Kirov (DayZ) said:

If a 13yo kid with a squeaky voice teabags you, it's not because he follows the Path of Black Mamba, and neither Nicaragua nor N Korea have nothing to do with it. He's just bored to death and DayZ perfectly accommodates his "gameplay" and does not penalize stupid behaviour (in the way we are talking about here).

This!

If DayZ players were forced, by the game itself, to do everything more cautiously and tactically due to increased "realism" and "difficulty" (increased in the way this thread is suggesting), the short attention span teenagers and other players that do not fit into the supposedly gritty world of Dayz would stop playing the game. They would neither have the patience or cognitive skill to survive as they could no longer sprint all over the map looking for tactical bacon, or make favorable tactical decisions in a game that does not allow them to use the same combat tactics as they do in GTA 5 online. 

 

Edit; If the scenario of DayZ would take place in the real world, intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable people would be the ones surviving in the long run. Hostility and brawn would only get you so far before you'd be outsmarted by another survivor, or just ruthlessly killed by nature. In DayZ, at its current state, knowing how to manipulate and abuse gameplay mechanics in your favor to get the upper hand in a combat situation is the one and only tool you need.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Vattenlarv

[Lexman61 78]

With all due respect, but some people clearly take an over intellectualized approach to DayZ. We are after all playing a video game, not a survival simulator for National Guard officers or CIA special OPS teams to realistically train in a post apocalypse civilian scenario. Nor should this game become a Ph.D dissertation in sociology or psychology for a few players who wish to recreate in their mind what is not, and never will be, a real life situation on a screen monitor.

There is an underlying patronizing attitude in the idea that there is a right and wrong way to play DayZ. That players should be "forced" by the game itself to play in a certain way, or obliged to follow the unwritten dogmas that some players promote to be the only "true" manner in which to enjoy DayZ, is completely unacceptable!

The kid coming from COD, the KOS only player or the asocial lone wolf sniper have the same right to play and enjoy the game in any way that they see fit on par with crop breeders, socially minded super interactive persons, ethical bandits and the "I-forgot-this-is-only-a-videogame types". The concept of trying to "weed out" some player types according to your own play style and behavioral preferences is just the opposite of what a videogame should be. I play DayZ for my personal enjoyment, not to please or conform to somebody else's play style, ethical, or philosophical "standards". If this is a problem for somebody too bad. 

DayZ is not and should not be like a game of chess with fixed and unchangeable rules to obey. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Lexman61

[pilgrim* 3514]

On 21/06/2017 at 10:13 AM, Lexman61 said:

There is an underlying patronizing attitude in the idea that there is a right and wrong way to play DayZ.

This is exactly true. The only "intellectual, ethical" argument is that there is no "moral high ground" in the DayZ game, and this is why I like it - and this is what we see in the real world. = people think their OWN world view is sanctioned and they are CONVINCED that others who do not agree are morally wrong and should be punished or stopped. So in DayZ - if you don't like them, shoot them!  Police them on the ground!  If you want to be a messiah, spread the word about "how to play right" but do it from inside the game. Anyone remember the "No Pants for Jesus"  movements that gripped some players a couple of years ago ??  

In ANY game, there is NO way to force people to play "with the right mental attitude" - this includes chess AND real world politics. Even the Nazis couldn't do it. When players want to lol, or they get bored, they will do <whatever> totally the most unpredictable things, and (to you) "crazy" things.  This is the interest of playing in a game with other players, instead of playing against AI. They do NOT think like you and cannot be predicted. Players are more interesting and dangerous than zombies. There is NO game that can't be played in a way YOU find totally unexpected, or even (gasp) shocking. As long as those people are not hacking or glitching how can you even begin to claim they are "wrong" in any way?  Look out for human beings they do ALL kinds of things.

Whatever changes you make to the gameplay, some (or many) players will find advantageous ways of subverting those changes in ways you totally disagree with, to meet their own aims - which are NOT yours. This is the nature of "individuality" and "conflict".  If this does not happen you have no game to play. 

The REAL alternative is to Hive Out.. with your little clan of followers. Isolate yourself in a private shard of DayZ  away from the "real" game. Set up a private hive where everyone have a "-decent -adult -christian-military -agrarian -peace -serious -no swearing (or whatever your minority group wants) enforced by the Private Hive Rules.  -PvP between consenting adults  -enforced cooperation - safe zones -only the Boss drives the Truck ..  whatever..

To me this makes the game GREATLY less interesting (but maybe not to you, as you like). I like to make up my own "moral" rules and DayZ gives me a fun and often exciting opportunity to do this. I don't necessarily play at all like the person I am in real life (as far as I know).

What else is it for?   Weight and stamina would be GREAT in DayZ that is certain - but it would also make certain the "bad evil lol kids" with screwdrivers could run faster than you. So you die a pointless death at the hands of a street gang. 

Where is the wrong in that? There are street gangs and KoS in the real world too. 

Perhaps "persistence" in DayZ has made the .. er .. "serious" players lazy, whoever THEY are ?

xxxp

Edited June 22, 2017 by pilgrim*
I give myself Beans

[pilgrim* 3514]

On 20/06/2017 at 11:31 AM, Kirov (DayZ) said:

 DayZ perfectly accommodates his "gameplay" and does not penalize stupid behaviour

Yes - life itself perfectly accommodates stupid behavior and does not penalize it - except that if you act stupid in LIFE someone might shoot you? - but Hey, that reminds me of DayZ ! - To me as <<a black-belt perfectly serious player who deeply respects the meaningfulness of DayZ>>  (in fact I'm the ONE person alive who really UNDERSTANDS the meaning of the game, others think they do but they are mistaken, believe me, my path is the only truth, OK?) - my advice - to myself -  is to avoid (or proceed with caution) in areas where there could be crowds of off-the-wall mad people who chase you with screwdrivers and baseball bats.

but hey, I avoid that in real life too!   

[pilgrim* 3514]

On 20/06/2017 at 1:36 PM, Vattenlarv said:

Edit; If the scenario of DayZ would take place in the real world, intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable people would be the ones surviving in the long run.

Where I COME FROM this has NOT been the case in the real world. But here we only have 2000 years of history to look at (a little more) - so perhaps things will change.

[Whyherro123 2283]

1 hour ago, pilgrim* said:

Where I COME FROM this has NOT been the case in the real world. But here we only have 2000 years of history to look at (a little more) - so perhaps things will change.

 

Like........see all that you wrote? Basically everything you just said was wrong.

I am getting really sick and tired of debating this topic with small-minded and short-sighted people.

"The Road" is not a documentary. "Fallout" and 'Mad Max" are fiction.

KoS, at least the shit-flavor exhibited in Day Z, is in no way 'realistic".

Do, did, and will people struggle against, harm and kill each other when shit gets real? Of course. Never said otherwise.

Will they do it like they do in-game? No, people tend to be smarter and more organized than that.

Peace. If this is the best this forum can come up with, guess it is time for another break.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Whyherro123

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

5 minutes ago, Whyherro123 said:

[snip]

Peace. If this is the best this forum can come up with, guess it is time for another break.

Amen to everything you said, not for the first time by any means. I must say I'm tired as well, sighing and rubbing my eyebrows as I read on. We've got the most beautiful and immersive realm I've ever seen on a screen, sure, let's make the death-by-screwdriver the horizons of our imagination.

The entire hope is with the devs now. I don't expect 0.63 to bring any actual changes to the gameplay, but hopefully the final release will deal with the 'kindergarten-on-meth' situation.

[larky2k 9]

On 2017-6-20 at 0:36 PM, Vattenlarv said:

Pilgrim, I do appreciate your post. It was a good read!

This!

If DayZ players were forced, by the game itself, to do everything more cautiously and tactically due to increased "realism" and "difficulty" (increased in the way this thread is suggesting), the short attention span teenagers and other players that do not fit into the supposedly gritty world of Dayz would stop playing the game. They would neither have the patience or cognitive skill to survive as they could no longer sprint all over the map looking for tactical bacon, or make favorable tactical decisions in a game that does not allow them to use the same combat tactics as they do in GTA 5 online. 

 

Edit; If the scenario of DayZ would take place in the real world, intelligent, perceptive and knowledgeable people would be the ones surviving in the long run. Hostility and brawn would only get you so far before you'd be outsmarted by another survivor, or just ruthlessly killed by nature. In DayZ, at its current state, knowing how to manipulate and abuse gameplay mechanics in your favor to get the upper hand in a combat situation is the one and only tool you need.

If this did happen in the real world. No one would KoS the first person they met. Cause realistically most people know Diddly squat on how to survive without their Iphones or Facebook. So the first thing someone would do is find someone with some Outdoors knowledge and try to make friends with them and help. This is one Humans do band together when things get tough and work it out to the end.

When I Play Dayz i rollplay the last pocket of a Military force depending on what Berets i find I play, Red = Paratrooper, Green = Royal Marine Commando, NZ Beret = New Zealand Defence force or the Chernarus Beret = Last local Military personnel.

I will go around try to help people by giving them food and Medical help (never lasts long) and go around cleaning out Villages of zeds to make them safe areas (I RP that it's safe). 

[sneakydude 480]

The problem with many things are this, each server will be differently done, and dictated the way they see fit. Arma 3 didn't restrict people from doing what they wanted, and arma 3 is one of the most popular modded games out there.

No matter what BI does to Dayz, it will still allow for modding, and people will find a way to remove restrictions to enjoy the game on their server. If modding is dummed down? well that will be loss for dayz in the end. Arma 3 didn't and still is strong.

The only thing i see this happening is on your own vanilla server, and official if they even last. But clearly i do agree with many of these issues.

 

Take modding away? takes away removing restrictions. Forcing the community to play "out of the box" game play.

[pilgrim* 3514]

19 hours ago, Whyherro123 said:

 

Like........see all that you wrote? Basically everything you just said was wrong.

I am getting really sick and tired of debating this topic with small-minded and short-sighted people.

"The Road" is not a documentary. "Fallout" and 'Mad Max" are fiction.

KoS, at least the shit-flavor exhibited in Day Z, is in no way 'realistic".

Do, did, and will people struggle against, harm and kill each other when shit gets real? Of course. Never said otherwise.

Will they do it like they do in-game? No, people tend to be smarter and more organized than that.

Peace. If this is the best this forum can come up with, guess it is time for another break.

Well, in fact I was thinking of the Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, and  of William the Conqueror's "Harrowing of the North" around the year 1080. Hollywood didn't enter my mind at all, sorry, just what we know of History and my limited understanding of it. For a few HUNDRED years folk around here (where I live)  utterly FORGOT that they once had underfloor heating, lawyers, fine-arts, a thousand miles of state run communication systems, written records, an international language, currency regulation, architects, professional sculptors, organized police and military coordination across an entire continent, stock and shares, legislation, paying schools, a Senate ..  they forgot  "civilization". This is is fact that bears on a "total breakdown of order" and what you can expect from it. Look at the records. -  the idea of Hollywood movies didn't cross my mind. Entertainment is how you see it, dude, choose your own. - I have worked in psychiatric hospitals, drug rehabilitation, and in games design - I'm interested in the "real" structures of human interaction (but don't let that phase you). The guy who started this debate proposed an intellectual argument, so I put up one I thought might interest him. I didn't expect many folk to read it. It was only to do the guy a favor. I certainly didn't intend to put my finger so far up your ass, for sure.  For anyone interested in 1080 CE  (not Hollywood) the Wikipedia page "Harrying of the North" takes 5 minutes of your life.. OK?

Still, <for lols> when I meet you in the game, remind me to KoS in the most "shit-flavored" manner possible (the change in play style will do me good). Wear a uniform, I HATE players in uniform. - thanx. You'll be pleased to know I won't be saying anything more on this forum. 

  p.s. - platform games like Donkey Kong are much "fairer" than DayZ and impose much more clearly-defined and rigorous play parameters. Not even Donkey Cong can control "attitude & mindset" but it tries. Perhaps that structure overlaid on DayZ would get rid of the players you don't like? - Or just Hive Off.  Why stay in a world where the other players aren't the same as you?

 

xx p

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

25 minutes ago, pilgrim* said:

  p.s. - platform games like Donkey Kong are much "fairer" than DayZ and impose much more clearly-defined and rigorous play parameters. Not even Donkey Cong can control "attitude & mindset" but it tries. Perhaps that structure overlaid on DayZ would get rid of the players you don't like? - Or just Hive Off.  Why stay in a world where the other players aren't the same as you?

Who's being patronizing now?

 

I wonder if you ever notice that you've missed the OP's point completely. Nobody called for any kind of control and that was stated quite a few times. All the 'regulations' we talked about are already there - after all, your combat behaviour is already affected by things like ammo spawn, map distances, toon speed, etc... You know what, nevermind.

[Whyherro123 2283]

39 minutes ago, pilgrim* said:

Well, in fact I was thinking of the Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, and  of William the Conqueror's "Harrowing of the North" around the year 1080. Hollywood didn't enter my mind at all, sorry, just what we know of History and my limited understanding of it. For a few HUNDRED years folk around here (where I live)  utterly FORGOT that they once had underfloor heating, lawyers, fine-arts, a thousand miles of state run communication systems, written records, an international language, currency regulation, architects, professional sculptors, organized police and military coordination across an entire continent, stock and shares, legislation, paying schools, a Senate ..  they forgot  "civilization". This is is fact that bears on a "total breakdown of order" and what you can expect from it. Look at the records. -  the idea of Hollywood movies didn't cross my mind. Entertainment is how you see it, dude, choose your own. - I have worked in psychiatric hospitals, drug rehabilitation, and in games design - I'm interested in the "real" structures of human interaction (but don't let that phase you). The guy who started this debate proposed an intellectual argument, so I put up one I thought might interest him. I didn't expect many folk to read it. It was only to do the guy a favor. I certainly didn't intend to put my finger so far up your ass, for sure.  For anyone interested in 1080 CE  (not Hollywood) the Wikipedia page "Harrying of the North" takes 5 minutes of your life.. OK?

Still, <for lols> when I meet you in the game, remind me to KoS in the most "shit-flavored" manner possible (the change in play style will do me good). Wear a uniform, I HATE players in uniform. - thanx. You'll be pleased to know I won't be saying anything more on this forum. 

  p.s. - platform games like Donkey Kong are much "fairer" than DayZ and impose much more clearly-defined and rigorous play parameters. Not even Donkey Cong can control "attitude & mindset" but it tries. Perhaps that structure overlaid on DayZ would get rid of the players you don't like? - Or just Hive Off.  Why stay in a world where the other players aren't the same as you?

 

xx p

..... You do realize that all the groups you mentioned were "civilized" in every sense of the term, right? All three made great advancements in art, culture (the Carolingian Renaissance), technology, etc.

Not even going to bring up the fact that all your examples were of groups, and hell, nation-states, waging war on other groups, in organized and measured fashions, for resources, land, or defese. Not a freshspawn running up to someone and stabbing them with a screwdriver for shits and giggles.

In fact, I actually don't quite understand what you are trying to get across. Especially regarding the Anglo-Saxons, the Norse and the Norman French.

All three of those cultures are considered to be the representative of the so-called "Dark Ages", a time of mythologized savagery, bloodshed, and the decline of 'civilization"........ except it wasn't. No historian worth their degree calls the period the "Dark Ages" any more, and current knowledge posits that the Saxons, the Franks, and the other 'barbarian" cultures were actually Romanized as fuck, to put the term bluntly. Hell, they even spoke Latin, in forms that today are recognized as French, Italian, etc. 

Even the quintessential Dark Ages "breakdown of society", the Roman abandonment of Britain, was less an orgy of blood and collapse of culture and more:

Romanized Britons: Hey, Romanized Saxons, we are having trouble with the Picts and Celts. You guys are pretty hard, since you served in the Roman Army and all.... come fight for us, and we will pay you in land!

Romanized Saxons: Sure.

Finally, they didn't forget  that such technology existed, it just became economically unfeasible to maintain. Roman cement is made up partially with volcanic ash: if you don't have the ash, you are shit out of luck.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Whyherro123

[Kirov (DayZ) 585]

To anyone who's not sure yet - focus on the OP's content, not the 'comments' which failed to grasp it. What is at stake here is giving meaning to your interactions, whether everyone walks away from them or not. This is a much subtler issue than any kind of gun control or whatever you think could be imposed. Please give it a moment to consider before jumping to any conclusions, ignore all the ridiculous strawmen in this thread. This is about tapping the actual potential of Chernarus, not about telling you what to do. This is about combat situations which don't call for a Benny Hill sountrack. This is the 'survival' which means more than applying rags to a gunshot wound. This is about making actual, meaningful decisions when meeting another player - counting your bullets, checking health and food status, etc. This is about so much more than the PVP-PVE dialectics.