De-Evolution of the Human Race

[LockeDown 144]

I've adapted my niceness to solitude, I will avoid people if I hear or see them. I won't shoot them if I don't have to, and I don't trust anyone I don't know a decent amount outside of the game.

[septuscap 42]

Thank you Zed for helping have insight on these things. It helps me understand the motivation behind the actions. I've never really gotten into pvp in any game where it is an option. If I'm forced to than I will and I will enjoy it. I never said dying made me mad or angry at another player. I was just not understanding the motives. I have figured out that my biggest issue is not playing with someone. I have 5 and soon 6 friends that play. But not together due to time. I guess I will avoid other players like the plague. Its nice to see where the community stands on this though. Thank you everyone for your input. :)

Since you seem like the pro-active type' date=' I'll re-post this for you. Don't listen to the crybabies, there are survivors and bandits alike doing really cool things, though you'd never know it based on the whine coming from the 99% of people running around like idiots dying (which I guess accurately represents real-life disasters :D)

Repost:

Wild West Server (does all the work for you, go interact "meaningfully")

Wasteland Medics

Freeside Trading Co, join survivors, trade, help set up a city

Survivor Checkpoint between Cherno and Elektro

These are a few of the more unique things being done. There are also numerous anti-bandit clans, survivor clans, clans that help new spawns with morphine/blood/food/soda/water, solo players who avoid players via stealth, etc.

And if you must meet strangers in-game, do it like you would in a real zombie apocalypse. You wouldn't just walk up to a guy with a gun and yell "HI THERE FRIENDLY?"

Keep some degree of cover while you initiate conversation. Have a friend on overwatch in case the situation goes bad. Test the waters; turn your back and use alt-look to see where he's aiming, chat him up and see if his responses lag like he's also talking in some VOIP (with his REAL group), see if he's trying to lead you into a trap.

Granted, there could be more features implemented to help survivors make cities, establish communication via radio, leave "posters" in-game advertising player cities, friendly clan protocols, meeting points/times for friendlies, etc. so you don't have to meta, but joining the right server + TS really isn't asking too much (or any more than the meta required to check the server lobby for an open-but-full server with decent ping)

[gopher_p 1]

Am I inhumane if I block your shot during a game of basketball? Or box you out and get a rebound you were going for?

Am I inhumane if I distract you by endangering your queen with my bishop' date=' only to advance with my rook and checkmate you?

Am I inhumane if I take advantage of your taking that last corner slowly in order to pass you on the inside and win the race?

...

You can no more call my humanity into question for shooting you in DayZ than you can for calling a fake punt in a football game.

[/quote']

These are false analogies. These are all zero-sum games in which the participants have agreed upon both a well-defined goal as well as a set of rules. There is also the issue of sportsmanship. There are circumstances in which all of the actions you have described would be frowned upon as poor sportsmanship.

DayZ is not a zero-sum game. The only well-defined goal in the game is survival. And there essentially are no rules. This topic (and others like it) is a discussion regarding the "sportsmanship" (or lack thereof) of the people playing the game.

[deathcon5 3]

I started out like you too. I never shot at anyone first. Then they pulled bandit skins from the game, which is more realistic, and it all went to hell. I started getting shot at in 90% of player interactions. After you lose your gear 20 times to a player who you trusted you learn to either shoot first or die. Now if I see anyone who is a potential threat I shoot them dead because there is a 90% chance they would do it to me. I mostly avoid areas where i am likely to run into players.

So, I ended up joining a clan and they all pretty much do the same. Some kiddies think its fun to just snipe other players because they are geared out and it seems like the most fun thing to do. I think the most fun thing is finding those players and killing them. It's a lot of work though. You have to track them and take the time to determine their intentions. But very frustrating with the server hoppers. And a good way to get killed by a 3rd party while you are watching the potential bandit. It's all good fun though.

Good luck!

[canbaron 0]

And if you must meet strangers in-game, do it like you would in a real zombie apocalypse. You wouldn't just walk up to a guy with a gun and yell "HI THERE FRIENDLY?"

You would not shoot everything that moves either because firefights are deadly and you only have one life.

In DayZ I try to kill everyone I see because they might carry that L85, NVG or GPS, I blow up cars with 50cal rifles so they respawn faster and after I die I grab a gun and go play Cherno or NW airfield deathmatch with no regard to my safety because it's the quickest way to get geared again.

As long as there are no game mechanics that reward cooperation with random people most players will behave this way. Survival is only a struggle for the first couple minutes.

If you team up with randoms not only do you have to share the loot, chances are they'll shoot you in the back to get some crap that spawns in every second building.

All this hurfdurf about the harsh post-apocalyptic world forcing you to shoot the guy who helped you in the head after you played for 2 hours together is just bullshit, people just like to get easy kills and then blog about it like they pulled off some huge EVE-O heist.

Without incentives to work together and the only things to do ingame being aquiring lootz and killing people that just won't change. I'd love to see more defined player factions (outside of RP servers/groups), ATM there is not even a split into "carebears" and "bandits".

Communicating with people outside your group is just too hard and risky to build up trust and you don't even get to know your enemies because there is no interaction at all outside of watching kill messages scroll by. No feuds, no grudges, no claiming territory, just shooting random dudes.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

The only well-defined goal in the game is survival.

Go read "What is DayZ?"

Banditry' date=' and the slaying of bandits, is one of the three well-defined goals. It's actually #2. [b']Above survive.

This topic (and others like it) is a discussion regarding the "sportsmanship" (or lack thereof) of the people playing the game.

Okay, then. Don't just say it. Discuss it. Tell me why rampant PvP is "unsportsmanlike" in a game specifically designed to permit and encourage it.

[rbro1987@gmail.com 16]

This has nothing to do with evolution. You either have no idea how that works' date=' or are willfully perpetuating ignorance via disinformation.

[/quote']

"willfully perpetuating ignorance via disinformation" oh god i am LOLing right now. I'm imagining some fat neckbeard with glasses and a videogaming tshirt, am I far off the mark?

[Poofus 1]

Factions are in the game right now. You can go join one any time you want. Why should the team spend hundreds of hours coding a system to support something you can already do in the game? Go join a clan, hop in the game with them and get to work!

You're missing the point. You can't just team up with anyone anymore. You have to know the person first and speak with them outside of the game to do this. The social aspect is completely gone now, in fact, as we know, on most servers general chat is now gone and limited only to groups, vehicle and direct.

Why you think this would reduce the occurrence of PvP is beyond me, though. If you're not in my faction, you're a target. Factions will be far more efficient killing machines than small groups or individuals. So, if anything, this would increase the rates of PvP as faction vs. faction combat became more common.

Again, you're missing the point. Visual factions. Anything ranging from specific uniforms, to different colors when hovering, symbols, anything that may be able to help you determine if that person is with your faction. that still doesn't stop backstabbers, which perfectly fine. But the occurrence will be less. Anonymous camaraderie would make a more common return, and faction battles sound like fun because no matter how you slice it, this is an fps shooter. I do not call for the death of pvp, i call for some organization that will help new players feel more welcome, and seasoned players to rule.

And don't be ignorant in assuming that just because it would take a ton of coding doesn't mean they should or shouldn't do it. By that mentality, you're saying that they didn't need to make this mod either. They didn't need to, but they did. And, they continue making changes based on feedback, don't they? Is my feedback any less valuable because you think it isn't?

I'm interested in what makes you think that rocket is interested in making the game "truly realistic."

How long have you been playing this mod? How many features have been added or taken away to make the game more realistic, and thus more difficult? We're you playing when there WASN'T an immune system and antibiotics? Or when you DIDN'T spawn with just a flash light and a bandage? Or when you didn't need to open your backpack to use what was in it first?

...How do you know? You just got done talking about what effect witnessing atrocities can have on people. Well, guess what? Most of us in Chernarus have watched our friends, family and loved ones torn asunder and consumed by flesh-hungry zombies. Some of us probably had to turn weapons on our own family when they became infected.

Are you serious? I mean, really. Are you? I'm actually laughing right now.

Do you think it might be possible a few of us were affected by these experiences?

Fine, ill give that to you. I was pretty pumped when i shot someone in self defense knowing full well that that person had just lost everything they worked hard to attain. But you absolutely cannot compare that to the pain that most feel when they had to, or accidentally took a human life. IN REAL LIFE.

Why do you get to tell me who I am and am not allowed to BE in the game?

Isn't that MY choices?

That is a good question. No really, im wondering where you even thought I was saying what you could or couldn't be.

Life expectancy was lower when bandit skins were in the game, and murder rates haven't really increased significantly since they were removed. Calls for their return expose you as being out of touch with the reality of DayZ.

No... just no. If what you're saying is true, there wouldn't be a million new threads about the issue of people getting shot by EVERYBODY every 30 minutes. When bandit skins were around, you could feel safer in assuming that the other guy in a survivor uniform probably didn't go around killing everyone. There was always a chance that they did, but there was an even higher chance that they didn't. I also didn't say I wanted them back. I definitely do not want them back. I want options. Yes, I know there there are different skins now (unless youre a female like me) but it's random and chaotic. It would take years to get an entire team outfitted with the same uniform judging by how rare they are to find. Do you remember when there were only bandit skins and survivor skins? teams of survivors would hunt for bandits, and vice versa. A majority of these people met in game and banded together. Not through clans. Clans barely existed back then yet. The game was much easier, but for the wrong reasons. This is why I call for factions that aren't formed through message boards. That can still exist in the form of teams within factions, or you can just remain a regular survivor, or vagrant. This functionality is already coded into the game via opfor, blufor, russians, usmc, army, etc. It wouldn't be as hard as you think it would.

[tact 3]

....

It is a game. Settle.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

You're missing the point. You can't just team up with anyone anymore.

You could never just team up with "anyone." It was always a risk. If you honestly think there was a time in DayZ when you could just walk up to a stranger and have some kind of guarantee that they weren't going to shoot you in the back' date=' then you either didn't play the game back then or you have a terrible memory.

Again, you're missing the point. Visual factions. Anything ranging from specific uniforms, to different colors when hovering, symbols, anything that may be able to help you determine if that person is with your faction.

Again, that's not going to reduce PvP. People already know who is with their faction. They're on Teamspeak and communicating constantly. There's no confusion - and they kill everyone else they encounter. "Visual" factions won't change this in the least.

I'm not opposed to giving people some visual means to identify themselves as part of a group, but why you think that will somehow stop people shooting each other is still a mystery to me.

Are you serious? I mean, really. Are you? I'm actually laughing right now.

Laugh it up. Care to actually respond to what I said? Who are you to say I'm not a sociopath in the game? Why do you get to determine what the mental state of my survivor is? Why can't I pretend to be partially infected? Why do you get to say "No" to that?

That is a good question. No really, im wondering where you even thought I was saying what you could or couldn't be.

Uhh, you just said you were "laughing right now" at the suggestion that I'm allowed to play a sociopath? So I'm confused. Are you or are you not trying to determine who I get to be in the game? Make up your mind.

No... just no.

The day bandit skins were removed the life expectancy was 28 minutes. It's now 38 minutes and murder rates haven't skyrocketed.

It's just a fact. You can't dispute it. I'm sorry. This isn't up for discussion. The numbers are right fucking there.

[gizm0 96]

I say lets make get rid of TS being allowed :D

However yes, dayz focuses and rewards players killing each other more so than it does them being peaceful to one another. Now I like to see what would happen if the only weapon was melee, in terms of how players interact.

[gopher_p 1]

The only well-defined goal in the game is survival.

Go read "What is DayZ?"

Banditry' date=' and the slaying of bandits, is one of the three well-defined goals. It's actually #2. [b']Above survive.

(A) I said "well-defined", and I meant it.

(B) I assume you're referring to the "Step 1 ... Step 2 ... Step 3 ..." graphic on the main page? In that case, you should note that Step 2 refers to the slaying of zombies and bandits. It says nothing about banditry. You may argue that banditry falls under Step 1, scavenging, and I would be inclined to agree. However I maintain that the only goal is to survive, Step 3. The other steps listed are merely suggestions towards achieving that goal. It is not necessary to scavenge or slay.

This topic (and others like it) is a discussion regarding the "sportsmanship" (or lack thereof) of the people playing the game.

Okay' date=' then. Don't just say it. Discuss it. Tell me why rampant PvP is "unsportsmanlike" in a game specifically designed to permit and encourage it.

[/quote']

Fair enough. Though I won't argue that "rampant PvP" is unsportsmanlike. For one, it's too broad a term (rampant PvP). Also, unsportsmanlike behavior is hard to define in black and white terms. It's easier to recognize when you see it. Killing a freshly-spawned, unarmed player is about the only act that I can think of that would nearly always be considered (at least by me) to be unsportsmanlike.

I think that players should let their real-world sense of morality influence the decisions they make in DayZ. I think that players should be able to justify their actions without resorting to tired, easy excuses such as "Because I can", "It's just a game", "This is how people would act if this were real", etc. If the goal is to survive, then that should be at the heart of every decision made.

Of course, there's no need to be super serious all the time. I understand that people are playing to have fun and to entertain themselves and others. But those playing for fun/entertainment need to at least recognize when their enjoyment bumps up against another person's experience in the game world and act appropriately according to their real-world sense of what is right and wrong.

Regarding "a game specifically designed to permit and encourage (PvP)": It is my understanding that the "game" was designed to elicit emotional reactions from players. Player interaction is permitted. PvP conflict is permitted. Aside from the limited number of vehicles on each server, I have yet to find anything in the game world that encourages conflict. That is something that the individuals playing brought to the table. Just because the game gives you a gun, that doesn't mean that it's encouraging you to use it against another player. Hell the game doesn't even give you a gun anymore. You have to go find one and pick it up.

[septuscap 42]

You would not shoot everything that moves either because firefights are deadly and you only have one life.

Most people who cry and complain do so because they're shot without any idea where they're shot from. They assume it's some sniper at 1800m but usually it's just some one who's been stalking you and concealing themselves really well. I usually kill from 100m or less and my mark usually never has a clue until they get shot in the head. I would say my way of playing is FAR safer than walking up to a random with a gun and saying "HI THERE FRIENDLY?" and then turning my BACK ON THE GUY and letting him shoot me in the head. I'm sure you read the follow-up sentence to the one you quoted where I described how you SHOULD approach strangers in this game (ie. don't be a fucking idiot).

As long as there are no game mechanics that reward cooperation with random people most players will behave this way. Survival is only a struggle for the first couple minutes.

If you team up with randoms not only do you have to share the loot' date=' chances are they'll shoot you in the back to get some crap that spawns in every second building.

[/quote']

Yes I agree, the risk of just trusting some random stranger is huge and there is almost no benefit. Most groups WOULD turn away random strangers; the only sure way is to kill them, or you risk them following you, sabotaging you, KILLING you.

That said, there are ways to overcome this trust issue. The "ace in the hole" lets you trust some one because you have a secret that gives you the upper hand (ie. a friend keeping the stranger scoped). Another common one is the trusted third party -- two strangers meet in a territory that is governed by one they both trust (say a player run city). There is also the use of dominance -- you have 3 people, you can trust a solo stranger more easily b/c he will die if he tries anything. I linked examples of each of these and more in the quote you posted (the part you didn't quote, rather). If you can't do those things, it's because you're a bad player. Try practicing by stalking the next player you encounter -- see how long before you lose track of him or he spots you.

No feuds' date=' no grudges, no claiming territory, just shooting random dudes.

[/quote']

You obviously are a newbie. Lots of fights are over territory, tent cities, supplies, and vehicles, with HUGE feuds/grudges between various clans. Just because you're some solo scrub doesn't mean everyone else is.

[nickcakes 4]

I say lets make get rid of TS being allowed :D

Every time you post, I become a bit more embarrassed to be part of the same human race as you do.

[septuscap 42]

Killing a freshly-spawned' date=' unarmed player is about the only act that I can think of that would nearly always be considered (at least by me) to be unsportsmanlike.[/quote']

I have a bone to pick with this to be honest. PvE players BEGGED rocket to remove weapons on spawn; I feel like a lot of this had to do with their desire to villify anyone who would kill them. "LOOK I HAD NO WEAPON AND HE KILLED ME." These were the same people who claimed you couldn't kill anyone with a makarov while simultaneously claiming people were deathmatching because of makarovs. (Note that I was killing many a sniper with nothing but a makarov to gear up on spawn -- this was actually a pretty fast way to gear up after dying)

Sure they said a lot of fancy things like "oh if you remove weapons people will team up! I can trust some one if he has no weapon! blah blah blah" None of it happened. First guy to pick up an axe slaughtered the rest. It wasn't trust, it was my inability to kill you with my bare hands. Just more stupid people saying stupid things and getting rocket to waste his time b/c the stupid idea was easy enough to implement.

I think that players should let their real-world sense of morality influence the decisions they make in DayZ. I think that players should be able to justify their actions without resorting to tired' date=' easy excuses such as "Because I can", "It's just a game", "This is how people would act if this were real", etc. If the goal is to survive, then that should be at the heart of every decision made. [/quote']

If the goal of life were to simply survive we would all hide in a bunker with just enough to stay healthy and do nothing else. Instead we do many UNSAFE things because a life worth living matters more than just the amount of time passed. If you want to just sit in a hill with zero traffic and kill a pig every 20 hours go right ahead. I think that's pretty fucking stupid.

In any case, the realism argument swings both ways. Of course this is a videogame and I wouldn't go on a homicidal rampage IRL. But nor would you walk up to random armed strangers and go "HI THERE, FRIENDLY?" You take advantage of the fact that you can just respawn.

Of course' date=' there's no need to be super serious all the time. I understand that people are playing to have fun and to entertain themselves and others. But those playing for fun/entertainment need to at least recognize when their enjoyment bumps up against another person's experience in the game world and act appropriately according to their real-world sense of what is right and wrong.[/quote']

You are prey and I stalk you. That is what makes the game fun for me. Remaining unseen while dispatching my victims. Figuring out what other players are up to. Safely scavenging supplies I need while protecting myself from people out to do ME in. Persistence, sandbox environments meaning all 50 players have completely different goals, the variability such a large map delivers, etc. Nowhere does it say that I need to care about your goal. In fact it literally says the opposite; I can take your shit if I so desire. If you're not used to a full loot game, it takes a little getting used to. Rocket didn't have to make the game full loot -- it's pretty clear what that feature was intended to do (or WOULD do at least).

I understand that killing you means you lose supplies that took you time to get. I carry that same risk. Most MMO's *aren't* full loot because players can't handle the concept of loss. This isn't one of those games.

[CaptainPlanet (DayZ) 23]

Well, I am probably the nicest person in DayZ. I never shoot on sight and I always try to help people to the best of my ability.

P.S. I'm a serial killer in real life.

[nickcakes 4]

This is a video game. You can't draw a single inference from it in regards to human nature.

[grizzle 21]

Okay' date=' then. Don't just say it. Discuss it. Tell me why rampant PvP is "unsportsmanlike" in a game specifically designed to permit and encourage it.

[/quote']

Permit - I agree with.

Encourage? There is only one factor that encourages PvP and that is personal choice of the player. There is nothing about the game mechanics that encourage one player to shoot another.

The game is CLEARLY designed to encourage grouping to help one another survive.

If you remove PvP - you still have a zombie survival game. If you remove zombies - there is no more context. It's just PvP.

So, is it a simple deathmatch simulation PvP game against a zombie apocalypse backdrop? Or is it a pseudo-psycho zombie survival game ("experiment") with the ability to kill other players?

[nickcakes 4]

Permit - I agree with.

Encourage? There is only one factor that encourages PvP and that is personal choice of the player. There is nothing about the game mechanics that encourage one player to shoot another.

The game is CLEARLY designed to encourage grouping to help one another survive.

If you remove PvP - you still have a zombie survival game. If you remove zombies - there is no more context. It's just PvP.

So' date=' is it a simple deathmatch simulation PvP game against a zombie apocalypse backdrop? Or is it a pseudo-psycho zombie survival game ("experiment") with the ability to kill other players?

[/quote']

Uhh, how does it not encourage pvp? You can kill and take anyone's stuff more easily and quickly than finding the items yourself. Additionally, anyone you see has the extremely significant chance of killing you for your stuff, so killing them to protect yourself is smart and encouraged. If you want to stay alive anyway. If you'd rather die a lot cause you think dieing is fun, then by all means, have happy fun campfire time with everyone in elektro.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

(A) I said "well-defined"' date=' and I meant it.

[/quote']

Oh, god. Are you being serious? Shoot folks in the motherfucking face. Is that fucking well defined enough for you? Fucking shoot them. It says it right fucking there. They even drew a motherfucking picture for you; stop acting like you don't know what it means. Oh it's a big mystery. I don't understand what SLAY means. Surely they don't mean PvP is a critical part of the game and we can't possibly do without it, right? Surely it wouldn't be as simple and clear cut as the picture that says right fucking there shoot fucking bandits, right?

Oh, that's not clear enough for me.

Someone clear it up.

What does it mean?

It says slay bandits but I can't quite puzzle it out.

Does that mean PvP?

Help me!

You ridiculous clown.

(B) I assume you're referring to the "Step 1 ... Step 2 ... Step 3 ..." graphic on the main page? In that case, you should note that Step 2 refers to the slaying of zombies and bandits. It says nothing about banditry.

Yes, because you can definitely slay bandits without first having banditry. You're right. The slaying of bandits definitely doesn't imply the EXISTENCE of bandits. Clown. Clown. Clown. Clown. Clown.

You may argue that banditry falls under Step 1, scavenging, and I would be inclined to agree.

No, I wouldn't argue that. That would be fucking retarded. Why would I fucking argue that? Banditry falls under step 2. The fucking step with the fucking bandit face right motherfucking in it you shitstick. You can't fucking kill bandits unless they fucking exist, right? Holy motherfucking shit.

However I maintain that the only goal is to survive, Step 3.

Maintain whatever the fuck you want. Maintain a kennel for prize wining dogs. Maintain a famous soup recipe. Maintain your elderly mother. Maintain whatever the motherfuck you fucking want that doesn't change the fact that PvP is right there in #2 of 3 on the goals of your game.

Ignore it if you want.

Stick your fingers in your ears.

It's not going away.

The other steps listed are merely suggestions towards achieving that goal. It is not necessary to scavenge or slay.

Oh, how convenient. The only step that matters is the one that happens to match up with your personal estimation of what the game is about. Ignore the things you disagree with despite their being listed BEFORE the ones you agree with, and just focus on the ones that happen to support your own agenda. That's fine. Do that. Do exactly that.

[gopher_p 1]

...

Perhaps you are the one who should pull his fingers from his ears.

Or maybe I should have been clearer in my first post. I don't know.

I quite sure you should spend more trying trying to understand and less time defending your position with insults. Maybe think about what I mean when I say "well-defined" and "goal" and "well-defined goal" in the context of the games that you mentioned. You're a smart guy. I'm sure you can work it out if you think about it for more than a second, so I won't insult you by spelling it out to you in detail as if you were four years old.