Firearms Should Not Be The Main Instrumentality Of DayZ

[hoak 27]

In the What MineZ is Doing Right, and What DayZ Could Learn From It thread Time Glitch offers a nice recitation about some of the more game-like features of MineZ; but also explores some features of design that would apply to DayZ in terms of realism even if it were a hardcore to-scale simulator (which it certainly is not).

The most important point made is lack of any realistic (or even working) ability in DayZ to signal and ascertain friendly intentions, where this might be difficult at times real world, and hit and miss on occasion; in DayZ it's virtually impossible and hurts the game substantially in terms of realism, depth of play, and fun.

To this end, a mechanic like a handkerchief that you wave as the intent for a peaceful parley for teaming or trade might serve where it can be dropped and a weapon drawn but you loose it, and have to find another; or it can be folded and stowed away in your bag, but that animation takes say fifteen seconds to buy everyone some thinking time -- short out all the ways this can play out for yourself...

Time Glitch also explores how he feels weapons are overpowered in DayZ which I (and most Fans responding in that thread) feel is not the case as DayZ's design intentions are more to realism, and this is not an issue...

However, and here is where I feel DayZ falls down hard in terms realism, depth of play, and interaction: and that's the over abundance of ammunition. In terms of game-play this in essence makes DayZ a shooter, where the main instrumentality of the game is shooting and killing, and sadly everything else is merely trim and accessory design concomitant to that for most Players.

In terms of realism, the post facto aftermath of any 'event' where all industrial production as ceased, and life and death confrontation between most of the world's population has prevailed would exhaust or destroy most stocks of ammunition and munitions -- making them (by most researched estimates) as or more scares then food or medical supplies...

Making ammunition more realistically scarce in DayZ would not only make it a much more valuable commodity, and tool rather then a simplistic, mechanical means to a destructive end arcade death match game like play the consequence. People might be more willing to communicate and trade -- and less willing to use firearms on each other, instead of playing like armed zombies themselves...

The ultimate instrumentality of DayZ, and the sharpest tool in the shed should be what's on your shoulders, not a firearm -- and the intent to kill anyone or thing that gets in your way as a cheap fast and dirty means to psychologically score -- certainly should be possible for some of the mentally deficient individuals that do play DayZ, but it should not be enabled as with arcade game design elements like 'unlimited magical ammo pick-ups'. There are a lot of means in the game already for it to offer vastly more realism, suspense, and interactive depth of play.

Communication, cooperation, trace, and building are much more realistic, and fun instrumentalities then shooting and killing -- it's not like there's a shortage of 'Zombie Shooters', survival horror or otherwise. Cut the ammunition spawn budget by 90% and put survival, horror, and a lot more depth and suspense back into DayZ.

∆

Edited July 13, 2012 by Hoak

[wartzilla 182]

If ammunition was more scarce, I'd spend even less of it shooting zombies and save even more of it for shooting other players.

Everyone should watch this presentation: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAXqwewejwU

[hoak 27]

If ammunition was more scarce, I'd spend even less of it shooting zombies and save even more of it for shooting other players.

If true that only demonstrates the kind of player you are, and aren't, and really isn't germane... If ammunition were scarce the volume of killing would be a lot lower, more selective and much more realistic...

∆

Edited July 11, 2012 by Hoak

[SGTFledge 43]

If true that only demonstrates the kind of player you are, and aren't, and really isn't germane... If ammunition were scarce the volume of killing would be a lot lower, more selective and much more realistic...

Depends on the danger provided by the multi-threat environment players are in. If zombies provide a good threat without being overpowered, players will be careful, won't rambo it up, and with ammunition scarcity, be much more careful with the placement of their shots, and more importantly, whether they even open fire.

However, a zombie isn't the type of threat that puts a round through your skull at 300-400+ yards. Or the type of threat that says friendly and then opens up with a shotgun at melee range. In this game, sad truth is that most players would save a bullet to expend into another survivors brain pan.

[saltedfish 2]

In terms of game-play this in essence makes DayZ a shooter

I cannot agree more. Once you hit a certain level (as a point of fact, just last night my friend and I looted a downed chopper and I walked away with 6-8 magazines of subsonic ammo for my rifle), zombies cease to be an issue and the primary threat becomes other players. Here's where the troubles begin.

If we want to keep DayZ from becoming just Call of Duty with an inventory system and zombies, I think there needs to be some way to limit the amount of ammunition present in the game. At first I did not agree with the OP at all, but his point, after reading his post, is valid: DayZ, at the right equipment level, transforms from a survival horror game to a deathmatch with zombies thrown in.

If ammunition was more scarce, I'd spend even less of it shooting zombies and save even more of it for shooting other players.

This, honestly, is a perfectly natural reponse. In fact, those previously mentioned subsonic rounds weren't just for killing zombies, but self-defense. The zombies as they stand now are really not enough of a threat, even at the beginning of the game. With some practice, it becomes possible to avoid any and all contact whatsoever, and even with lesser amounts of ammunition present, players will still have surplus ammo to use on other players.

The problem here is that the zombies themselves do not present enough of a challenge to make a suitable antagonist for the game (for mostly the same reasons that they would make a terrible antagonist in real life). The only thing that can legitimately challenge the players in the game are other players, but then that's not what DayZ was intended to be.

In addition to limiting ammunition in general (or give ammunition an expiration date?), I think there really should be some way to toggle PvP on or off. I feel obliged to state that I can appriciate and understand the intent of the game in it's effort to be realistic enough to illicit a response from the player. The constant threat of being killed by another player is a unique addition (honeslty, there is no other game that comes to mind that lends the same degree of tension and fear, and I truely applaud DayZ for eliciting that response in its players, I never tought a game could actually provoke that kind of feeling), but the simple fact of the matter is that the player base, the PvP combat, and the overabundance of ammunition will all mix together to eventually cripple the game by producing people who prey solely on other players purely for the sake of killing them.

Yes, you're absolutely right, it is realistic. Yes, you're absolutely right, there would be utterly nothing preventing people from kiling each other over a can of beans in a 'real' zombie apocalypse. Yes, I did watch most of the video, about 10 minutes in Rocket does touch on the subject of banditry and later on mentions (commendably so) that the intent is to preserve the core mechanic which is making the player feel nervous and scared. But then the intent of the game, as I see it, is to simulate a zombie apocalypse first, and shooting other people second. If I want to kill other people (which I don't), I'll go play Call of Duty. Killing other players needs to be relegated to 'oh by the way you can do this' status; as it stands now, the game may well careen uncontrollably towards a massively multiplayer shooter with zombies.

Perhaps, to make the zombies more of a threat, return to the traditional model of headshots only? This would increase the threat potential of even one zombie from a minor annoyance (solved by two rounds center mass) to a slightly more involved and risky business. This, coupled with a scarcity of ammunition and a removal of player versus player, may well preserve the aura of nervousness while simultaneously eliminating the possibility of griefers and weeding out people who play DayZ for the wrong reasons (ie, to hunt other players).

I'll conclude by stating I wish DayZ the best because it is unique and it breaks the mold and sets a new standard. When describing it to a friend, I stopped and realized, "this game might well be the first of an utterly new genre." I was incredibly excied when I realized that, and I hope that people reading this will understand my trepidation at the thought of DayZ becoming a game wherein highly geared players mow down new players a few hours after they spawn on the beach, and oh by the way there are zombies.

[vision1776 42]

If ammunition was scarce I would also save to kill players. Im not a bandit but my experiences in this game have taught me that players are more scary that zombies and are to be shot on sight. The less ammo I have the more I will save to kill other players. This is the fundamental truth to the matter.

[edonovan 15]

If ammunition was scarce I would also save to kill players. Im not a bandit but my experiences in this game have taught me that players are more scary that zombies and are to be shot on sight. The less ammo I have the more I will save to kill other players. This is the fundamental truth to the matter.

Are you going to scream at the zombies to kill them, then?

Zombies need to be more keen on gunfire, too. This way if you do let a round loose, you should expect every zombie within 200m to investigate/attack. Force players to think about their actions.

[KWilt 157]

Like most people in this topic said, more bullets to shoot survivors with.

Hell, it's not like I actually shoot my guns anyways. Can't remember the last time I even shot a zombie. I've gotten well enough to just crawl around them. (Granted, this was in 1.7.1.5. Doubt crawling works as well in 1.7.2.) I already save those 120 STANAG rounds for living, breathing, shooting targets. Never know when you're gonna hit a dry rut and need the ammo.

[TehMikaL 49]

respect ur opinion.

but no thank you. I feel like with out guns and ammo, Id just be crawling around collecting soda and beans and I bet that would get old for me pretty quick. I have to shoot things, or my peebrain sized brain gets upset.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Less ammo and fixing the infinite ammo bug is essential.

It doesnt matter if you save your ammo to shoot players. If you have less ammo you will have to expose yourself more often to the dangers of the game. Actually play it.

Lets take an example.

Mr Noob sniper. He sits on the hill overlooking Cherno with his 50 cal. And snipes noobs. Then he server hops and oh look his ammo is full again. Rinse and repeat.

In a world with less ammo and no ammo regeneration bug. He has lets say 20 shots then he is no longer a sniping douche, hes a guy that has to go and expose himself to hunt for more ammo. he also has to pick his shots more carefully. It's a massive change to the game and we really need it.

It's fine to come in here saying oh man you give me less ammo Ill save it all up for players. Well thats fine, but unitl we test it and actually see what happens we wont know despite what the blowhards say.

[molarmalare 1]

Im new to dayZ so i might not have the insight you guys have, but wouldent making ammo for snipers and other long range weapons have good effect? Then you could still hav your pistol or crossbow for zombi killing and to kill another player you would have to get up more close and personal and that would be risky. A risk vs profit.

[hoak 27]

If we want to keep DayZ from becoming just Call of Duty with an inventory system and zombies, I think there needs to be some way to limit the amount of ammunition present in the game.

The game is already Call of Duty or more accurately Quake III Arena in slow motion with a realism paint job if you think about it as DayZ has all the same mechanics as Quake III Arena:

· random re-spawn death match

· stupid angry bots

· unlimited magically re-spawning pick-ups & ammo

· moshing homicidal stupid players

Everything just happens in slow motion, you even re-spawn with no consequences but a tiny inventory of pick-ups lost, as there's no Call of Duty like round to wait for to finish...I point this out not to be cynical or negative, but because as most Players discover this they'll loose interest in the game and sans changes it's success will be little more then another gaming fad.

The anecdotal responses from the death-matching Cretins that can't manage any large full-context thinking beyond shooting and killing doesn't make a case for anything other then something we already knew, ergo there are death-matching Cretins playing DayZ too -- which I'm sure is an exciting life achievement for some of these individuals...

But for the rest of us that want a more realism, more survival centric, or survival horror world with building and more interaction then just shooting and killing and death-matching mechanics; will want more.

As I offered earlier; in any catastrophe where industrial production has ceased, and life and death confrontation between most of the world's population has prevailed -- ammunition would not only be scarce, it would be a fossil resource for a long time, that became increasingly scarce, which is the opposite of what we have in DayZ now where ammunition supply actually increases as it re-spawns and is added to a growing server population's inventory.

It doesn't matter what individual Players think or would do, what matters from Rocket's own perspective is realism and atmosphere; and if the same mechanics that prevail in DayZ prevailed in the real world -- the human race would have been extinct with the inauguration of firearms.

I'm fine if some miserable lone slob with no life wants to get his endorphin kick sniping people, there are obviously people that fucked up in the real world, and they'd prey on people in the event of any cataclysm; but these people are not the majority who want more out of everything, i.e. not just to survive, but flourish -- and apparently Rocket gets this and wants to have building mechanics in the game -- I just wonder if he gets the prevailing (monotonous & boring) death match economy that rewards little more then killing...

Perhaps a return to the premise of the thread: firearms should not be the main instrumentality of DayZ (emphasis added)...

∆

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[BossFi 90]

lack of any realistic (or even working) ability in DayZ to signal and ascertain friendly intentions

This is exactly why friendlies are shooting friendlies on site. Your suggestion of waving hankerchiefs doesnt work as your already dead.

The only valid option to fix this is to let players who want to advertise they are friendly by letting them choose to wear a friendly skin. And to stop griefers exploiting this, it should only be wearable by players who have high humanity.

Edited July 12, 2012 by BossFi

[harken (DayZ) 57]

This is exactly why friendlies are shooting friendlies on site. Your suggestion of waving hankerchiefs doesnt work as your already dead.

The only valid option to fix this is to let players who want to advertise they are friendly by letting them choose to wear a friendly skin. And to stop griefers exploiting this, it should only be wearable by players who have high humanity.

That is a decent idea, though it isn't realistic in any way it would be good to at least know the person you are aiming at hasn't killed anyone...yet.

[hoak 27]

This is exactly why friendlies are shooting friendlies on site. Your suggestion of waving hankerchiefs doesnt work as your already dead.

I understand your objection and appreciate your actually making the effort to discuss the topic! However think about how this (or something similar) would operate in practice...

First all the time constants for these actions have to be at parity, so 'faking' while possible is a challenge as it would be in the real world; no one in their right mind is going to yank out and 'waive the hanky' at someone pointing a firearm at them (unless they know the opposition), you only take the thing out to signal friendly intentions to someone that's disarmed, to do the same -- if they draw you draw, if they don't respond you make a decision, if they waive back you make the next step in raising the level of trust in the interaction.

Skins and classes are cheap game mechanics that remove all the interaction of trust from the game; I like Rocket want for there to be the opportunity for people to prove themselves as assholes, or show themselves to be trustworthy and accountable.

∆

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[Zeromentor 169]

Minecraft has swords and bows. Limited range weapons with a better chance to survive an encounter with hostiles by running away.

DayZ has many guns that instantly kill people, and those that don't usually cause their death soon after by bleeding to death. Melee doesn't work with this engine all that well, and trying to make the game more family friendly (like Minecraft) wouldn't be what the devs are after.

So no. To each their own, but Minecraft's version is going down it's own path, as similar as they might be, but a different path none-the-less.

[BossFi 90]

I understand your objection and appreciate your actually making the effort to discuss the topic! However think about how this (or something similar) would operate in practice...

First all the time constants for these actions have to be at parity, so 'faking' while possible is a challenge as it would be in the real world; no one in their right mind is going to yank out and 'waive the hanky' at someone pointing a firearm at them (unless they know the opposition), you only take the thing out to signal friendly intentions to someone that's disarmed, to do the same -- if they draw you draw, if they don't respond you make a decision, if they waive back you make the next step in raising the level of trust in the interaction.

Skins and classes are cheap game mechanics that remove all the interaction of trust from the game; I like Rocket want for there to be the opportunity for people to prove themselves as assholes, or show themselves to be trustworthy and accountable.

∆

The shoot on site in this context means....

... not having any time to do anything else apart from shoot when a player suddenly appears in front of you in point blank range.

Nobody is going to risk walking around without a weapon in their hand, or start waving hankerchiefs in this situation.

In experience those that pretend to be friendly (like waving hankerchiefs)who dont shoot on site with their feeble gun will kill you after you start looting for your shiny gun. So I dont trust those players either!

[molarmalare 1]

Minecraft has swords and bows. Limited range weapons with a better chance to survive an encounter with hostiles by running away.

DayZ has many guns that instantly kill people, and those that don't usually cause their death soon after by bleeding to death. Melee doesn't work with this engine all that well, and trying to make the game more family friendly (like Minecraft) wouldn't be what the devs are after.

So no. To each their own, but Minecraft's version is going down it's own path, as similar as they might be, but a different path none-the-less.

I see your point, however i dont se how making ammo for longrange weapons more scarce is making the game more family friendly. Weapons (not counting hunting rifels) are extreamly rare in moste countries where there are extensive regulations for who can own a fierarms moste offtently you have to have a reason to use them.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Lots of people point out that making the game harder to survive will reduce the amount of PKing. Reducing ammo is def part of this.

If your struggling to survive there is no need to waste your ammo on a noob that has nothing, its a flat out waste. If you have (as you do now ) infinite ammo, you can kill who you want for fun.

If the zombies are more of a threat shooting at someone becomes higher risk as well. Then you have to use your precious ammo defending yourself.

Although this has all been suggested many times, Ive added this thread to my list ( below in my sig) as its a current active thread that fits in with my overall vision.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Strategos

[hoak 27]

The shoot on site in this context means... not having any time to do anything else apart from shoot when a player suddenly appears in front of you in point blank range.

Obviously, but not the point... No one is going to try to 'friend' someone that's running and gunning, or even just alone and armed and has their gun out, or anyone that does is going to learn quickly this is not the best approach to meeting people in DayZ...

Nobody is going to risk walking around without a weapon in their hand, or start waving hankerchiefs in this situation.

First of all over generalizations like 'nobody', 'everybody', 'always' and 'never' are more frequetnly wrong then right. You did however indicate a vague qualifier with 'this situation', and that is what I feel is key to suspensful, realistic friending, trade and or altercation in DayZ where -- just like a real survival situation you'd be cautious and or scared of a threat you did not have a good measure of, and you'd use realistic means to sizing them up, following them, observing them from a concealed position from a distance, and then from a concealed position announcing intentions and suggesting a meeting.

In experience those that pretend to be friendly (like waving handkerchiefs) who dont shoot on site with their feeble gun will kill you after you start looting for your shiny gun. So I dont trust those players either!

Again, this is in part because ammunition is currently in magical infinite supply in DayZ , which is patently ridiculous... The game mechanic would change radically if you could only find two or three rounds for a weapon inside an hour -- meeting people would be much more interesting as no one would be sure their prospective friend or foe had a full magazine, just one round or none, and they'd have the same uncertainty about you, this would creat the same random vulnerability real people have in these situations...

We'd never have the civilization we have or game's like DayZ if the kind of mechanics that currently prevail in the game prevailed in the real world.

∆

[lesovikk1@hotmail.co.uk 2]

I love how people go on about realism, when we have never had a zombie outbreak and the downfall of humanity, How do we know what would, and would not happen is the question.

The only thing we can guess is the need for food, water and shelter. And a way to defend ourselves from the zombies. And there wouldnt be a unlimited suply of ammo

Edited July 12, 2012 by lesovikk1

[enforcer1975 1111]

Where i live you wouldn't even have to bother about ammo shortage because you have to have a weapon in the first place. If i'm lucky i could get my hands on a rifle from the barracks closeby or kill my neighbor 4 houses away to get his hunting gear. So the only option would be a melee weapon. I could kill zombie rats with my air rifle though :D

[hoak 27]

I love how people go on about realism, when we have never had a zombie outbreak and the downfall of humanity, How do we know what would, and would not happen is the question.

The only thing we can guess is the need for food, water and shelter. And a way to defend ourselves from the zombies. And there wouldnt be a unlimited suply of ammo.

The 'realism' part of the discussion (and your love of it) doesn't pertain to zombies, which aren't even supposed to be zombies in DayZ but 'infected'... You have read and viewed Rocket's comments on his design intentions right?

The 'realism' part of the discussion here pertains explicitly to the fact that ammunition is not only in infinite supply in DayZ but grows, i.e. the more players that join the more ammunition there is in the game -- not the opposite which would be the 'realistic' and prevailing trend.

∆

[kovalhuk 19]

I agree partly with OP,

In my opinion top military fire guns and top gear like NVG have to be very rare in this game. And overkill weapons are needless here.

But i don't think that PVP have to be changed. PVP as it is right now is just the result of chaos. Humans share the same niche, and will kill each other for food or security.

I like the danger, the sensation that i can be killed. If the danger becomes the zombie AI, then the game will get boring since, Without being unbalanced, AI will never offer a real challenge. I have fear from what i cannot control or anticipate.

In my mind, if some zombie apocalypse comes, the human race will be the real threat. And some of them carry guns.

Edited July 12, 2012 by kovalhuk

[hoak 27]

I agree partly with OP,

In my opinion top military fire guns and top gear like NVG have to be very rare in this game. But i don't think that PVP have to be changed. PVP as it is right now is just the result of chaos. Humans share the same niche, and will kill each other for food or security.

I like the danger, the sensation that i can be killed. If the danger becomes the zombie AI, then the game will get boring since, Without being unbalanced, AI will never offer a real challenge. I have fear from what i cannot control or anticipate.

In my mind, if some zombie apocalypse comes, the human race will be the real threat.

Well said...

∆