Firearms Should Not Be The Main Instrumentality Of DayZ

[Trooper (DayZ) 3]

Ask yourself some questions before commenting on the 'guns' issue.

1. How many zombies do you avoid rather than just kill?

2. The ones you avoid, do you avoid them because you don't want to make noise and attract attention (i.e. players) to your location or is it due to ammo concerns?

3. The ones you kill, are you killing them for a specific reason? (stopping you from getting to a loot pile with something good in it, etc)

4. Do you carry a silenced weapons so that putting down zombies dosn't attract attention?

My experience mostly is that players avoid killing zombies unless they have no other choice (Cherno/Elektro madman sessions not withstanding) and keep their guns and ammo for engaging players.

[hoak 27]

Ask yourself some questions before commenting on the 'guns' issue.

1. How many zombies do you avoid rather than just kill?

2. The ones you avoid, do you avoid them because you don't want to make noise and attract attention (i.e. players) to your location or is it due to ammo concerns?

3. The ones you kill, are you killing them for a specific reason? (stopping you from getting to a loot pile with something good in it, etc)

4. Do you carry a silenced weapons so that putting down zombies dosn't attract attention?

My experience mostly is that players avoid killing zombies unless they have no other choice (Cherno/Elektro madman sessions not withstanding) and keep their guns and ammo for engaging players.

Which only reinforces the point that the unlimited/growing ammunition supply currently in DayZ is not only unrealistic, but larger then needed. Add to that and consider kovalhuk's point in his post above; where a gun with just one round is lethal, and even empty but unknown is a powerful threat -- and you have much more interesting game-play with scarcity then the current shoot every human on sight death match play with unlimited ammo...

∆

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[TeaLeaf 5]

I think hand signals etc would help, but in general the reason people kill each other is that there is no real benefit to teaming up with strangers. With IRL friends, sure, but randoms just make you paranoid and you often get separated by desync.

My policy and the policy, it seems, of most other people is to just avoid randoms altogether but if they make an obvious effort to close distance with you or just surprise you around a corner you blow them away. Shooting in ArmA2 is hard, but it's not so hard that you'll risk allowing someone to get the first shot off and kill you instantly.

[Zeromentor 169]

Which only reinforces the point that the unlimited/growing ammunition supply currently in DayZ is not only unrealistic, but larger then needed. Add to that and consider kovalhuk's point in his post above; where a gun with just one round is lethal, and even empty but unknown is a powerful threat -- and you have much more interesting game-play with scarcity then the current shoot every human on sight death match play with unlimited ammo...

∆

And then with ammunition being rare, those that have it will use single-hitting instakill weapons like the Lee Enfield, CZ550, and many others. They will kill everyone they see, not for fun, not for food, but for ammo.

Instead of killing people because they have too much ammo, they will kill people FOR their ammo. And melee wouldn't work well in this game. From the glitchy zombies to the buggy melee and everything in between, the engine can't even work well with melee as it isn't designed for it.

So... What are you trying to accomplish?

[saltedfish 2]

Holy crap my inbox exploded.

It seems a lot of people agree that the plethora of ammunition is indeed a problem, which I think is a good thing. I'm also pleased to see that the trolling and flaming is being kept to a minimum. As I was reading the comments other people left, a thought occurred to me: As a possible solution, what if the amount of ammunition in the game was fixed every time the server restarted? That is, there is a decent amount lying around that is slowly depleted over time as the time since the last server restart increases and no more ammunition respawns (perhaps with the exception of one or two helicopter crashes). It would certainly model a true apocalypse more accurately, as I can imagine a frenzy of activity immediately after the start that dies down as stockpiles of food and supplies dwindle. It would also give people time to get the deathmatch bug out of their systems as the people who prefer PvP log on right after the restart, gear up quickly and kill each other, and the people who are more focused on survival wait a day or two for the excitement to die down.

In addition, if corpses were persistant, it would also let the survivors pick over the bodies of the fallen. Suddenly, finding a body on the side of the road would become a boon for the survivors as it might be one of the bodies of the deathmatchers and thus have ammo, food and tools on it. Might add an interesting gameplay element. It'd be neat, I think, to have another source of gear aside from chopper crashes and houses.

[Zeromentor 169]

Holy crap my inbox exploded.

It seems a lot of people agree that the plethora of ammunition is indeed a problem, which I think is a good thing. I'm also pleased to see that the trolling and flaming is being kept to a minimum. As I was reading the comments other people left, a thought occurred to me: As a possible solution, what if the amount of ammunition in the game was fixed every time the server restarted? That is, there is a decent amount lying around that is slowly depleted over time as the time since the last server restart increases and no more ammunition respawns (perhaps with the exception of one or two helicopter crashes). It would certainly model a true apocalypse more accurately, as I can imagine a frenzy of activity immediately after the start that dies down as stockpiles of food and supplies dwindle. It would also give people time to get the deathmatch bug out of their systems as the people who prefer PvP log on right after the restart, gear up quickly and kill each other, and the people who are more focused on survival wait a day or two for the excitement to die down.

In addition, if corpses were persistant, it would also let the survivors pick over the bodies of the fallen. Suddenly, finding a body on the side of the road would become a boon for the survivors as it might be one of the bodies of the deathmatchers and thus have ammo, food and tools on it. Might add an interesting gameplay element. It'd be neat, I think, to have another source of gear aside from chopper crashes and houses.

Well atleast you are thinking. Anyhow, most servers restart every 12-18 hours. I agree with less ammunition per spawn (God, I have found as many as 6 stanag magazines with an M4).

Corpses remaining on the otherhand would cause server issues. People like to continuously respawn over and over and over again until they find the perfect spot. Others run off and die within the first 5 minutes to zombies. The game would be flooded with corpses, and servers would have to restart every 3 hours just to wipe the map of them.

The most I want is a more limited spawn of magazines with weapons. Instead of 2-4, make it 1-2.

An M16A2 with only 30 rounds makes you think before you shoot. An M16A2 with 150 does not.

But limiting more than that causes players to kill each other more often FOR ammo, which defeats the purpose.

[kovalhuk 19]

Which only reinforces the point that the unlimited/growing ammunition supply currently in DayZ is not only unrealistic, but larger then needed. Add to that and consider kovalhuk's point in his post above; where a gun with just one round is lethal, and even empty but unknown is a powerful threat -- and you have much more interesting game-play with scarcity then the current shoot every human on sight death match play with unlimited ammo...

∆

Edited my mentioned post to make my thoughts clear. I have to confess that:

- i dont thought an "out of ammo weapon threat" but the idea is fun :D

- and i play as a bandit. An unscrupulous bandit, actually. I play as a bandit right now because it offers me the best chance to survive. And i like the role.

I just think that ammo is offered too abundantly. As well as super weapons, beans and pepsi. Today I have a m14 with 8 clips (i like loud mens guns :D ). But i think that 8 clips is too much. If i had less clips i would keep them to kill another survivor in a firefight. If m14 clips was very rare would rather carry an winchester. Or both =).

The problem is that the game enviroment is too artificial. No insolation, equipment weight and speed, wounds that needs time to heal, etc. I do not fear death ingame. Just respawn and find it all again.

Make the guy choose between beans and water sufficient to 3 days with an m16 with 3 mags or an AS50 with 10 mags with food and water sufficient to 1 day;

Make an pesi worth sufficient to you get laid with the hottest women in the world;

Make you lose more than 15 min of running if you die. Add character development, make me real upset if i die;

The game will change drastically. Maybe will become more PVP oriented than today.

Edited July 12, 2012 by kovalhuk

[hoak 27]

And then with ammunition being rare, those that have it will use single-hitting instakill weapons like the Lee Enfield, CZ550, and many others. They will kill everyone they see, not for fun, not for food, but for ammo. Instead of killing people because they have too much ammo, they will kill people FOR their ammo.

That's an irrational assumption... First of all if you only have three rounds for your weapon, you simply can not 'kill everyone' you can at MOST kill three (if your luck and skill hold out). Of those three who will have ammo for your weapon? The most likely scenario if ammunition is realistically scarce is NONE...

So... What are you trying to accomplish?

Is it really that hard to understand? Honestly are you even making an effort to read (and understand) what anyone else is saying but yourself? Does full-context understanding of simple game design abstracts and basic human psychology escape you entirely? Do you not understand the title of the thread?

∆

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[Zeromentor 169]

That's an irrational assumption... First of all if you only have three rounds for your weapon, you simply can not 'kill everyone' you can at MOST kill three, of those three who will have ammo for your weapon -- the most likely scenario is NONE...

Is it really that hard to understand? Honestly are you even making an effort to read (and understand) what anyone else is saying but yourslef? Does full-context understanding of simple game design abstracts and basic human psychology escape you entirely? Do you not understand the title of the thread?

∆

I'm sorry if reading more than just the title frustrated you. You seem to think that limiting the amount of ammunition will increase players helping each other and being nice and friendly to one another. It will not. More people will be MORE unfriendly. They'll get a magazine of 10 rounds for a Lee Enfield, a pretty common spawn, which kills in 1 hit. They will see other players loot a nearby barn, and when they don't come out with a weapon that player might leave them alone.

What is more likely, he'll kill them, because they could have another 10+ rounds for his Lee Enfield, as it is a common spawn, more than other military weapons. Why trade? A bullet works much better. Plus, if a player sees someone now heading to him with a melee weapon, he won't assume the player is coming to ask for a trade, but that melee wielding player is coming to claim the gun in his hands by blood-spewing means.

Basic Human Psychology means humans would work together for FOOD, WATER and Shelter. As we need only FOOD and WATER ingame, and there is only enough for 1 of us, most would rather use a single round to know they have food and water. Your death doesn't mean the end of your life, but the loss of your equipment. Death means very little. Power comes out the end of a gunbarrel.

In this virtual world, people would rather kill you. Especially when those people usually play military simulators, not creative block-building simulator-craft. This community is not based on trusting random strangers, but killing them if they have something of value, or can give you something of value (More kills on Debug Window for instance).

People are more ruthless, less trusting and generally more annoying on the internet. This isn't reallife. Oh, and in real life, I have more ammunition in my house than there is people in my neighborhood. I could go around the houses around me, and collect enough guns to supply a small militia. I don't expect you to understand this. In this mod's world, guns are plentiful. Not wooden swords. People can kill each other more easily, with less danger, and with less time than chasing them around with a freaking wooden sword.

[-BoB-Megustaaa 5]

please i beg, stop trying to fuc* with the game, its amazing the way it is

[hoak 27]

I'm sorry if reading more than just the title frustrated you.

I wrote it why would it frustrate me?

You seem to think that limiting the amount of ammunition will increase players helping each other and being nice and friendly to one another.

No, that assumption is all yours, no where do I suggest or even imply that it will... I have made no assumptions, only a suggestion that the game's ONLY instrumentality be deemphasized and others added. If games ONLY interaction is killing, there's no depth, no future and absolutely no suspense.

The game as it stands is Quake III Arena in a mash-up of mixed-mode (Bot & Human) slow motion, random respam, death match with unlimited ammunition, lives and weapons. Calling it 'survival' is no more apropos then calling a Burger King Whopper a 'Survival Sandwich'...

Rocket, the mod's lead Developer (not me) has indicated his desire and intent to offer more instrumentality in the game (like building), and for it to be more then just a shooter...

∆

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[Rich (DayZ) 18]

I love the intention behind this idea, but I think it's quite flawed.

I, too, have noticed that people now shoot on sight rather than co-operate. When the mod was younger, there was more co-operation.

So what's changed? It's not the amount of ammo, that's for sure. I would postulate two major things here.

1) Decreased world threat. People know the game now. They know they can survive on their own and that they don't need to befriend strangers for help or advice.

2) Increased player numbers. A total guess, but I would think that most people who play DayZ do it with friends or clan-mates or people they know from outside DayZ. They don't NEED to run the risk of finding a stranger in game to help them out with a blood transfusion.

Ultimately this comes down to simple human psychology. And I'm not talking post-apocalytpic, survival psychology, because that's irrelevant here. What we have here is a computer game and a simple incentive/risk/reward situation. When you see a stranger in DayZ, there is an immediate risk/reward calculation to make.

If you try to befriend him you risk being killed and losing all the stuff you've spent hours collecting, in return for a reward of... well, maybe someone to help you shoot Zeds or watch your back, maybe someone with whom you can swap easily available food/water/supplies. But there's not much of an upside and, consequently, most players have arrived at the conclusion that the reward is not worth the risk.

if you try to shoot him on sight, you risk aggroing nearby Zeds and being shot by your target in the firefight, or by any friends he may have nearby. This is certainly risky, but the rewards are greater. You get to steal all the stuff HE'S spent hours collecting, which is so much easier and less time-consuming that finding it all yourself. And what are the downsides? A lower invisible stat (humanity) and another 'Murder' tick on your Debug monitor. Apart from that, a mild sense of guilt that you ruined some other computer gamer's day. But so what? They'll respawn and try again. That's part of the game.

So really what it comes down to is a lack of incentives to co-operate. Restricting bullets won't affect this at all; it'll just mean, as some other posters have said, that ammo becomes more valuable and therefore weapons that other people are carrying are worth more because, presumably, they have ammo for them. Scarcity implies desire. Desire, in DayZ, implies banditry.

Ultimately, the only way to encourage players to cooperate is to incentivise them to do so by offering rewards commensurate with the risk of NOT shooting someone the moment you see them. But how do you do that when most people already play with people they know outside the game?.

It's a problem without a solution at the moment, and while I'm sure restricting ammo would affect the game in some ways (primarily to do with perceived Zed danger), it's not the solution we're looking for.

Nice try though.

[hoak 27]

I love the intention behind this idea, but I think it's quite flawed.

Which idea? And, how does magic/infinite ammo vs finite ammo = the same volume of killing?

Nice try though.

:rolleyes:

[Rich (DayZ) 18]

Which idea? And, how does magic/infinite ammo vs finite ammo = the same volume of killing?

Nice try though.

:rolleyes:

Well, obviously, I'm talking about the idea that reducing ammo will increase cooperation. Just because I disagree with you, there's no need to be facetious about it!

You're making a wild and unsupported assumption that is actually nothing to do with the volume of killing, but the PROPORTION of killing. If you only give everyone 10 rounds, there will clearly be less killing of both Zeds and players. That's not what I'm talking about. But, as plenty of people have tried to point out to you, if you reduce ammo you're saving Zed lives, not player lives.

The main threat in DayZ, once you've gone beyond the start and got yourself a weapon, is other people, not Zeds. This is just a fact. No amount of high theorising is going to change the facts on the ground.

You're articulate and polite, but you're clearly unwilling to listen to criticism or read the debate properly. It would be more constructive if you were to see the debate about your initial idea as something to be encouraged, not something to be snuffed out with patronising dismissals like "Nice try, though." Clearly you're parroting my words, but I meant it genuinely. I think it's a good idea, and I like how you've come to the forums to spell it out, and it IS a nice try. I just don't think it'll work.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Rich

[hoak 27]

Well, obviously, I'm talking about the idea that reducing ammo will increase cooperation... You're making a wild and unsupported assumption that is actually nothing to do with the volume of killing, but the PROPORTION of killing.

That assumption belongs exclusively to you and Zeromentor, no where did I say, suggest or imply it would; the thread is about game instrumentality and interaction (I'd suggest reading it in entire) there is however considerable digression to that effect... On the topic of assumptions, your's aren't particularly complete or full-context either offering only simplistic either/or alternatives, which quite simply in terms of game design doesn't play out that way. It's easy enough to prototype and test your theories, in fact it's already been done...

∆

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[Rich (DayZ) 18]

That assumption belongs exclusively to you and Zeromentor, no where did I say, suggest or imply it would; the thread is about game instrumentality and interaction (I'd suggest reading it in entire) there is however considerable digression to that effect...

∆

It looks like an assumption that belongs to everyone else in this thread. And I did read every word.

After the long introduction, your OP came down to this:

"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 and arcade game like play. People would be more willing to communicate and trade -- and less willing to use firearms on each other, instead of playing like armed zombies themselves..."

You have started a debate about stopping people killing each other and trying to get them cooperating. If that wasn't your intention, I would love to know what was, because an ephemeral desire to have a game that doesn't involve as much shooting must surely be a means to an end, otherwise... is it just a question of personal distaste for shooting games? Please explain. I'm sorry if I haven't understood your initial point.

[Zeromentor 169]

That assumption belongs exclusively to you and Zeromentor, no where did I say, suggest or imply it would; the thread is about game instrumentality and interaction (I'd suggest reading it in entire) there is however considerable digression to that effect... On the topic of assumptions, your's aren't particularly complete or full-context either offering only simplistic either/or alternatives, which quite simply in terms of game design doesn't play out that way. It's easy enough to prototype and test your theories, in fact it's already been done...

∆

Oh my bad, I seem to have gotten you mixed up with the OP.

Oh wait, that's because you are, "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 and arcade game like play. People would be more willing to communicate and trade -- and less willing to use firearms on each other, instead of playing like armed zombies themselves..."

My bad, your own words might need to be editted.

[Rich (DayZ) 18]

Oh my bad, I seem to have gotten you mixed up with the OP.

Oh wait, that's because you are

Internet High Five!

[Hayabusa (DayZ) 18]

Internet High Five!

HAHAHAHA

[hoak 27]

It looks like an assumption that belongs to everyone else in this thread. And I did read every word.

After the long introduction, your OP came down to this:

"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 and arcade game like play. People would be more willing to communicate and trade -- and less willing to use firearms on each other, instead of playing like armed zombies themselves..."

You have started a debate about stopping people killing each other and trying to get them cooperating.

No, that statement does not distill my post, you're quoting out of context, and no where do I make an assumption; the statement is literal, and does not imply any conseqences beyond what it says...

If that wasn't your intention, I would love to know what was...

It wasn't, my intention is clearly stated in the thread topic, in fact it's not far from the design intentions Rocket has been discussing, ergo making the game more then a shooter with building, and larger scale of interaction/interactivity (more sand boxy), with more game opportunity then just killing -- which was my reason for posting...

....because an ephemeral desire to have a game that doesn't involve as much shooting must surely be a means to an end, otherwise... is it just a question of personal distaste for shooting games? Please explain. I'm sorry if I haven't understood your initial point.

Please, with the petty remarks... If you honestly give a shit; read the thread... AGAIN... Or 'bro fist', congratulate yourself on an imagined Internet life achivement and bicker about semantics -- but if you want to discuss game design, with Developers, at least make a more honest effort to do so...and I'll return your consideration in kind...

∆

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[Zeromentor 169]

@Hoak

My God you should be a politican.

You say something you don't mean, because your very first sentence expressed more than you'd like, but any ability to build on it is ignored by you yourself. You say things, then conflict them and then fight yourself and say you said something you didn't mean, when you defended it, and then go on to say it was out of context, when I quoted the entire paragraph, not just one sentence, which is part of a larger post that anyone can see and look at right now.

So, yeah. Politican. Your new career.

Oh, and you aren't being clever. There is no debate here. Read your own post, edit is as you see fit and try again.

I LIKE TRAINS!

Edited July 12, 2012 by Zeromentor

[Rich (DayZ) 18]

Please, with the petty remarks... If you honestly give a shit; read the thread... AGAIN... Or 'bro fist', congratulate yourself on an imagined Internet life achivement and bicker about semantics -- but if you want to discuss game design, with Developers, at least make a more honest effort to do so...and I'll return your consideration in kind...

Usually, a reluctance to simplify and/or repeat an initial idea is a sign of a) arrogance and B) a communication problem. Quite clearly, your initial post didn't do a good job of explaining what you mean, otherwise you wouldn't keep having to say this throughout the thread. Trust me, if people don't understand something you've written, that means it's your problem, not theirs, even if it makes you angry and they must be stupid. Clarity of communication is almost a greater skill than clarity of thought.

So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will ask you again. I am being as considerate as I can be, and this is a genuine query. What, in a paragraph, was your original proposition?

[Undeadsteak 16]

I think less ammo spawn would be cool. It's pretty common as is. I'm pretty much in favor of less loot spawn in general, but server-hopping and what not needs to be fixed before any of that can progress. The game's real easy as it is, especially when you group up. With big groups, it's just a joke. Tents stacked with endless amounts of medical supplies, food, water, and guns.

At the same time, it needs to be done with an expansion of melee weapons and not so much broken bones from zombie nonsense.

I honestly couldn't give a shit about what effect this'd have on PvP. People killing each other more for food? Good, sounds pretty realistic to me.

I'm extremely pro-PvP and enjoy the aspect/andrenaline rush that the game gives as a result of that. However, that lasted for a week or so. Now that I can easily recover gear in a matter of an hour or two, it's not a heartpounder. It's just sorta turned into a 'eh, I died, time to head back to camp/hit up deer stands.' I wish dying was more punishing and starting back up was actually a challenge. I like the survival aspect of the game, and the PvP that it entails. However, I don't much care for the game being played out in a death match style, and I think the major reason for that is the overabundance of loot. The survival aspect basically disappears once you're familiarized with the game and get past the learning curve.

I'm sure the majority of this forums will rush to disagree with me because they enjoy the CoD-like gameplay with slightly more risks, but does your heart ever pound anymore when you're in a dangerous situation? Mine doesn't. And that's a bummer.

I'll repeat again, though, the exploits need to be fixed before any of this can even be considered. When you can relog to regain full ammo or switch servers to find better loot, the aforementioned changes would merely be minor inconveniences. Also, zombies that run in straight lines would be nice too.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Undeadsteak

[hoak 27]

I am being as considerate as I can be, and this is a genuine query. What, in a paragraph, was your original proposition?

I'll do it in a sentence, and even modify it to fit Rocket's own premise:

Firearms should not be the only instrumentality of DayZ...

If you want a larger context for some of the discussion that ended up here; then take a look at; Time Glitche's thread about MineZ, a mod that's more influenced by Rocket's design intentions and recitation, then current DayZ execution...

If that doesn't help you, and you can't see that DayZ in it's present form is in essence slow motion death-match, and that Rocket has/had more ambitious intentions then that; then I can't help you...

:blink:

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[Rich (DayZ) 18]

I'll do it in a sentence, and even modify it to fit Rocket's own premise:

Firearms should not be the only instrumentality of DayZ...

If you want a larger context for some of the discussion that ended up here; then take a look at; Time Glitche's thread about MineZ, a mod that's more influenced by Rocket's design intentions and recitation, then current DayZ execution...

If that doesn't help you, and you can't see that DayZ in it's present form is in essence slow motion death-match, and that Rocket has/had more ambitious intentions then that; then I can't help you...

:blink:

Well ok, now we're getting somewhere. Perhaps you should re-read MY original reply to you as well, because I'm arguing for many of the things you seem to be. That was certainly my intention when I wrote it, so I was surprised by your dismissive reaction.

Here's a very important quote from the post you link to which effectively sums up what I said:

Grouping up has great benefits, while solo play isn't punished.

In other words, the risk/reward ratio of befriending a stranger currently means it's not worth taking the chance in DayZ, whereas it is in MineZ.

Your suggested idea of reducing the incidence of ammunition to address this question of 'weapon instrumentality' is what I was disagreeing with. It will not work. it will make people more likely to hoard guns and shoot each other to steal weaponry.

So while I applaud your initial stated desire, I think your suggested solution is wrong for all the reasons I articulated in my first post. Now can you respond to those arguments without dismissing them offhand or insulting me?