Firearms Should Not Be The Main Instrumentality Of DayZ

[hoak 27]

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.

No.

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.

That's as unsupported an assumption as any you've claimed I've made; it would seem you've never confronted someone with ill intentions and firearms as the means to accomplish them in the real world, and countered with the same threat of force. In the real world the consequences are very final, and most people will act to avoid them; in DayZ there are virtually none...

To be explicit so there's less opportunity future misunderstanding:

1) Like Rocket I have no desire to stop people from killing each other that want to do that, I do however think there should be realistic alternatives that work; currently there are none, and I'd like to see some of the arcade/magic death match 'enabling' mechanics removed from the game like infinite magic ammo and weapons everywhere (at a greater per capita density then Quake III Arena)... You may choose to like the fundamental absurdity and lack of realism this puts in the game, I do not.

2) Ammunition should be finite for a plethora of reasons that go beyond this discussion, and while ammunition scarcity alone

might

not effect more realistic game outcome, more realistic weapon and ammunition placement, with finite ammunition together could have a very positive effect in this regard.

3) Realistic friendly or friending mechanics, building, radios, and other game world interactions instrumentality and/or tools will give Players means to team up and effect more realistic outcomes then just death-matching.

4) In the real world there is always strength and security in numbers; larger numbers (all other things being equal) always have an advantage, and cooperating with someone is virtually always the smarter, safer long term bet then killing them for what you can get off them. Even in DayZ where if you effect some modest navigation skills you don't need rape players for a cans of beans and a few bullets, in fact while it may be very gratifying to weak egos, it's very inefficient, just as it is in the real world...

Bottom line is my argument don't have to satisfy you, or yours me; as neither of us are the arbiters of this game's design; but as is, DayZ is a just simplistic slow death-match, and if that doesn't change, the popularity fad, like all game fads will fade fast.

:)

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[Rich (DayZ) 18]

No.

That's as unsupported an assumption as any you've claimed I've made; it would seem you've never confronted someone with ill intentions and firearms as the means to accomplish them in the real world, and countered with the same threat of force. In the real world the consequences are very final, and most people will act to avoid them; in DayZ there are virtually none...

Yes, and this is clearly where we've been going wrong, because that's exactly what I said in my reply to you. Perhaps my initial disagreement about ammo restrictions (and I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree about that) blinded you to the rest of what I wrote, which was, in essence, that this is a video game and therefore the real life consequences of shooting someone do not apply.

I agree with you that it's bad if this game becomes Deathmatch.

I agree with you that there is not enough incentive to cooperate.

I agree with you that it is too easy to resort to gunplay to solve all problems.

One of the things I loved about the mod initially was that you never knew, when you first saw someone, if they were going to help or hinder you. Now you do. If they're carrying a rifle, they're going to try to kill you (or often enough for it to be a near-enough certainty).

So the only thing we disagree on is the ammunition thing. It would have saved us both a lot of time if you'd noticed that to begin with! :)

[saltedfish 2]

I, for one, harbor no illusions that reducing the amount of ammo in the game will cause people to cooperate more. As has been pointed out, its actually more likely to cause players to save ammo for use on other players.

I'll come out and be honest, I love the game and the fear response I feel when I play it. So I'm torn when I realize I hate PvP, since yes, it's not something I enjoy and it's not something I'm good at. I don't want to remove it completely since others dislike it; I merely want to put a brake on it and curb that urge in players to give the rest of us a break. Sure I rage when I die, but the game always pulls me back. I don't want that feeling to go away, but I'd also like to get to a point where I can just enjoy the survival without worrying about someone coming along and ruining all my work.

The real problem here is what many other games face: reconciling two different play styles without compromising either. This is why I'm liking my idea to have a finite amount of ammo coupled with server restarts. Not just because it's my idea, but because it offers a solution that can please both camps. Right after the server restart the PvPers hop on, help themselves to the goods lying about, and run around for a few hours. After they've sated their bloodlust, and simultaneously diminished the supply of food and ammo, they set the stage for the survivors who come on later to poke about and enjoy a setting thats always a little different each time thanks to the efforts of the PvPers.

The issue will be further lessened as more group activities (which Rocket mentioned in his vid) make it into the game, and this new content incentivizes cooperation.

Pardon any mispellings. At work on my phone, heh.

[hoak 27]

I, for one, harbor no illusions that reducing the amount of ammo in the game will cause people to cooperate more.

I don't know why people keep ragging on this, I never said it would, it may make people more judicious as to when and who they shoot however -- but I've always said I want that up to the Player not impressed on him by design, and with some of the other features and mechanics discussed it could have a hand in getting the game back to where (and I agree with Rich here) the game it was better as there was more uncertainty.

Just by way of illustration as to how more realism can effect (not control or change, that's still up to the Player) these outcomes; if for example AKM rifles and it's ammunition is only found in only location on the map (where it might be realistically stored and found), the weapon may be common there and the ammunition less so, and other weapons likewise in other locals shotguns on farms etc., and two players have a confrontation in yet another local each has the implicit premise they are probably be carrying different guns, are probably low on ammunition, and neither is likely to be hauling ammunition the other guy can use.

This offers a situation of more parity of uncertainty and negatives with respect to violent outcomes that are quite realistic in some regards where the risk of getting in a fire-fight for the small gain of what someone is carrying may not serve a person as well as trying to trade or partner up or even just moving on...

If the game insures that all players are shy on ammunition, and that's not a difficult thing to achieve no one will have certainty in of outcome -- and that's what I think we all really want, opportunity and choice. Currently I can scrounge up more ammunition in this game more quickly then I deploy with in ArmA II, and it's ridiculous that even though I may not spawn with a gun, in no time at all I'm more heavily armed then contemporary infantry, in a post-apocalyptic world where all means of ammunition manufacture are gone. Like others in other threads I enjoy the foraging, but I'd like it to be a smarter, more realistic and challenging strategic affair then the effortless death-match arena pick-up and stupid booty fight it is...

Just say'n...

:)

Edited July 12, 2012 by Hoak

[tom.dullnig@gmx.net 16]

I am, once again, amazed to see people writing elaborate posts over pages and still only scratching the surface of a problem. You see deathmatch going on and the main means of killing people are guns. Obvious solution: make ammo rare. As it has been pointed out, there will be no decrease in deathmatching. In fact, the one guy you kill may hold 5 mags for the gun that you just collected. Sure, killing for the fun of it will go down but killing for the uncertainty of loot on another player will skyrocket. It's in our nature, this is a pass-time activity and people want an easy way to get as far as possible in the time they have.

What the OP (and succesive posts) fail to understand that the core design element behind this mod is freedom of choice. Everything (and more) you ask for is already in there. It's just up to us to discover, explore, develop and share.

Your persistant complaints about how ammo is too plentiful have nothing to do with being able to play the mod and stay alive with as much as a hatchet. Plain and simple. All you need to accompany this hatchet is a water bottle plus hunting knife and matches. Boring you say? Now we are talking.

Ask yourself: how many times have you been shot at in a place that offered little in terms of risk/reward other than maybe finding a better weapon? How many times have you run into a player in a town that you wouldn't have needed to go to if you went out hunting? How often have you been killed by a sniper in the middle of nowhere? Then how often have you been sniped in a high-yield loot area because you did not take your time to approach in a manner that would keep your presence concealed until the last possible moment?

Over and over again the problem boils down to our own lazyness, our own mistakes that sometimes happend minutes or even half an hour ago. That one zombie that you shoot inside a barn south of Stary can cost your life 15 minutes later if the shot was heard by another player. It's the lack of imagination in tactics, the lack of focus when playing, the lack of attention span when sneaking that kills players over and over again. It's our own decisions that put us and our group in danger, not some wannabe pro setting up camp in the middle of nowhere with an anti-materiel rifle.

What's more, why are the highest populated servers the ones that offer the least chance of survival? Ask yourself again, why do you think you get spotted over and over again by snipers or pvp-ers on servers that have nametags and magic gps on. Give them more, play on a server that gives distances when scrolling. Now let's go to the NWAF and complain on the forums when our whole group gets wiped by the one PKer camping there. Again: it is not his fault you died. It's your own decisions that resulted in the chain of events leading to your death.

Now that you're thinking, go on and think: What can I do to challenge myself? Can I make this any harder for me if I get bored? Why not playing a full life crossbow only? Or try to see how long you can go without a weapon at all except a hatchet on your toolbelt. The possilities are endless and there is no wrong and right. Sure, the PvP-ing in Cherno and Elektro is annoying, but then again, do you have to go there?

Of course, there's obvious issues at hand, such as ammo tracking and combat logging, but the real gamebreakers are found somewhere between the keyboard and the chair.

End-game content such as building structures (no, not tent cities) and side missions that can only be accomplished by groups or even little quests to get background info on the outbreak would be nice. However for now we have to do with what we have.

And that is a lot.

[hoak 27]

You see deathmatch going on and the main means of killing people are guns. Obvious solution: make ammo rare. As it has been pointed out, there will be no decrease in deathmatching. In fact, the one guy you kill may hold 5 mags for the gun that you just collected. Sure, killing for the fun of it will go down but killing for the uncertainty of loot on another player will skyrocket. It's in our nature, this is a pass-time activity and people want an easy way to get as far as possible in the time they have.

All unsupported assumptions. Where for example is your imaginary player going to get five magazines of ammunition if it's scarce? Who is going to risk a booty fight for harder won booty via a sketchy crap-shoot fire fight where they may have only three rounds, but the other guy may have four or a faster firing weapon?

These non-sequitur non-thinking binges are certain to go on in game even under circumstances of scarcity, just as they do in the real world (and on this forum) -- but when it becomes more of a zero-sum approach (unless you carefully stalk and observe someone for what they're carrying) DayZ will become less of the slow-motion arcade death-match casnio game it has, and more of what its Designer intended...

:rolleyes:

[tom.dullnig@gmx.net 16]

All unsupported assumptions. Where for example is your imaginary player going to get five magazines of ammunition if it's scarce? Who is going to risk a booty fight for harder won booty via a sketchy crap-shoot fire fight where they may have only three rounds, but the other guy may have four or a faster firing weapon?

These non-sequitur non-thinking binges are certain to go on in game even under circumstances of scarcity, just as they do in the real world (and on this forum) -- but when it becomes more of a zero-sum approach (unless you carefully stalk and observe someone for what they're carrying) DayZ will become less of the slow-motion arcade death-match casnio game it has, and more of what its Designer intended...

:rolleyes:

If these are unsupported assumptions, then why are players shooting each other over and over right now? I doubt it's all for the lulz and I don't think a player 600m away with his back turned towards you is a threat.

After all these patches (and I have been here since week two) that have tried to "balance" PvP have had the opposite effect. No bandit skins - more KoS. No starting weapon - KoS. Just browse through this forums after the relevant patch dates. The list will continue to grow by trying to force classic solutions onto a new concept.

Again, even if ammo and guns are scarce, that one guy you spot may have the extra ammo you need. DayZ in it's current state is enough proof. Even with an M4 and one magazine you do have 30 chances of killing a player. An Enfield gives you ten very potent chances and even a Makarov gives you enough. It's risk-reward at work and as long as people have nothing to loose, they will go for the risk. See above, every patch that put players in a worse punishment situation upon death has prooven this concept does not work.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing, people will always go for the easy path and let's face it: the easiest way to get what you need is from another player. It's that perceived chance of hitting the big fish that keeps fueling the fire.

The arcade-run-and-gun gamestyle you descibe is much more related to leaderboards, server-hopping,duping, hoarding, ammo tracking (or lack thereof) and boredom and not related to a (working) mechanic.

Also, how do you know what the designer intended? In the latest interview said designer made it clear that he does not want to punish one particular style of play. That is something you can look up on youtube if you want "proof".

Again, it's arguing for the sake of arguing. You put the blame for your deaths on someone else plus you are trying to force a certain style of gameplay that you perceive right on other players. Yet you fail to see that this game is about "me" not "them". It's all about what you do in-game.

What really needs work apart from the obvious exploits, hacking and glitches is the death-respawn mechanic. Ultimately the game needs to punish death not gamestyle. I doubt that with a 15 minute respawn-timer and tent/storage-wipe upon death players will go for PvP even half as much.

[Aeoneth 163]

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.

Yes it's possible that people would start killing for more ammo but here's the crux of the thing... Noone would have any.

Since we can't see what ammo a person is carrying it would be up ot the bandit to choose wether 1- 5 of his 30 Stanag rounds should be expended on the player with a fireax in the hopes that he is carrying a random Stanag clip. Yes he might get lucky and find a clip but more likely than not there will be nothing on the body and he will have wasted those 5 rounds on a fruitless goal.

Now in the event mr M16 come across a M4 user or some other Stanag utilizing rifle then yes it is likely there would still be murder for the ammo. But that is how I believe the game SHOULD be played. I see you have something I want, therefore I will kill you to take it. Not I see that you might possibly be a threat if I drop my guard and stand in the open, therefore I should kill you now.

I've been in favour of the reduction of ammo and possibly guns (at the very least a slight reduction of military loot) for a while now. It fits the theme in my belief as this does not appear to be a 5 minutes after outbreak scenario but upwards of one or two months since the outbreak and thus military locations and ammo in general would be much harder to find since most common places would have been looted already.

[saltedfish 2]

it is not his fault you died. (...) You put the blame for your deaths on someone else

As a matter of fact, it is his fault that you died. This is a classic case of blame shifting. Not only is it his fault in the sense that he's the one that pulled the trigger, it's also worth noting that you going to that area in search of gear is a perfectly natural thing to do, it is the point of the game after all. Your decisions to go to that area have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the other player's choice to kill you beyond you simply being there.

The point here is that the blame for PKs lies with the PKer himself. No one else. To argue otherwise shows you simply want to shift blame to the other people and say "they made me do it" to make yourself look blameless. No one made you take the shot, you made the decision yourself. Just like the other person made the (legitimate and not at all unusual) decision to enter that area in search of goodies.

I doubt it's all for the lulz

I don't mean this to sound like a flame or trollpost, but your naivete is astonishing. The lulz are the ONLY reason people kill each other. I sincerely doubt the times I've been killed were because someone was hungry or low on ammo, but rather the player saw an opportunity to rain on someone else's parade, and took it. I'm not going to toot my own horn, but I know people well enough to know that there is a large demographic of online players who will take a dump all over you simply for the 'lulz' and because they can. And I have no doubts that many of them play DayZ, and that is the what I primarily take issue with.

Your comment regarding the 600m shot also doesn't support your claim that the majority of PKs are for the gear those people carry. Am I really going to shoot somone 600m away and then trek all the way over there? It's also worth mentioning that the removal of bandit skins (lack of clear targets, now everyone is fair game) and the removal of a starting weapon (thus leaving new players utterly efenseless) is just more proof for the fact that most PKs are just done for the 'lulz,' And just how much effect is changing the starting conditions going to have on PKing? Are you sure the increase in PKing was due to the starting condition changes, and not just more people playing the game?

easiest way to get what you need is from another player

I'd take the opposite side, since it's not always clear WHAT people are carrying. You could spend your precious ammunition on someone, only to find their backpack is full of empty tin cans. Are there any statistics on where most PKs happen? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them happen in the cities. You might say, "well, no kidding." But if people are killing each other for the sake of replenishing their gear, which seems to be the argument you're trying to put forth here, then shouldn't most of the PKs happen outside the cities? As people leave the major hubs with their bags full of pasta and coke? That would make the most sense, and any raw data will either confirm or deny this claim.

I doubt that with a 15 minute respawn-timer and tent/storage-wipe upon death players will go for PvP even half as much.

How can you seriously suggest this as a solution to this problem? This is a terrible idea, and you should be ashamed to even suggest it. It's horrible because it punishes not the person who does the killing but rather the person who is killed. All this would do is add insult to injury and make the game even more unpalatable. You're right, of course, that it would punish the bandits (provided they were killed), but since everyone else who dies would also incurr this penalty, how does this deter banditry specifically? If that is, indeed, your aim here.

However, your point regarding the "not wanting to punish either playstyle" is totally valid, and I can get behind it 100%. I've said it multiple times, and I'll say it again: I'd hate to see DayZ lose some of its luster by removing the PvP aspect in it's entirety. All I want to do is curb both playstyles; allow each free riegn, but still allow players a chance to play their preferred way without players from the other way impinging on them. I just want to run around the countryside and dodge zombies. Honeslty, I don't want anything to do with other players beyond the friends I play with.

For the sake of the discussion, I'll reiterate my stance: I'd like to see not only a reduction in the amount of ammunition present in the game, but also a finite amount that dwindles over time, and that is replenished with each server restart. I'd also like to see less military rifles and long range weaponry. It would probably also not be amiss to beef up the infected some, perhaps going to the classic model of head-shot only incapacitation, in the hopes of providing an alternative threat to other players.

Edited July 12, 2012 by saltedfish

[hgilbert@iswest.com 5]

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

Nice try though.

:rolleyes:

Did you even read his post?

:rolleyes:

[Undeadsteak 16]

The problem with this forum is that there are two majority groups. Carebears, and PvP enthuasiasts. The PvP enthuasiasts assume that any sort of suggestion that would upset the current nature of the PvP in the game (even if it isn't necessarily hindering it, just making it different) is automatically an attempt by carebears to ruin the PvP in the game and make it more co-op friendly. And then the carebears come in stating such views, and the opposing group points and yells "See! I told you they just want to ruin the game and make it for casuals!" Yes, I think everyone here understands that Rocket wants players to decide how the game is played. However, the nature of the game affects how players react. The game atmosphere is made through the players reactions to their environment. If you change the environment, the reactions will be different. I'm going to point out that is a zombie survival game. The current stage of the game de-emphasizes the survival part and emphasizes the PvP part. I don't have an issue with the latter. I sure do have an issue with the former, though. Zombies are basically a joke in this game, existing solely to provide a challenge for newer players.

Why is it such a terrible idea for this game to be more difficult for surviving? Obviously, players can't control that aspect of the game. That lies with the developers, as they, once again, create the environment around us. They are the architects. I, by no mean, agree with the stated views of the OP. There is nothing wrong with the PvP in this game. There is something really wrong with the survival aspect of this game when zombies are brushed aside easily and people never have to worry about drinks and food because they're so easily found.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Undeadsteak

[Zeromentor 169]

[...]

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...

[...]

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 shooters zombie, survival horror or otherwise. Cut the ammunition spawn budget by 90% and put survival, suspense, horror, and a lot more depth into DayZ.

∆

I don't know why people keep ragging on this, I never said it would, it may make people more judicious as to when and who they shoot however -- but I've always said I want that up to the Player not impressed on him by design, and with some of the other features and mechanics discussed it could have a hand in getting the game back to where (and I agree with Rich here) the game it was better as there was more uncertainty.

[...]

I have returned with quotes in hand, or on internet posts as the case may be, fighting to be the most annoying poster on this thread.

Anyhow, yes OP you did say that. Whether or not you meant it, just like Obama 'fixing' the USA's Economy, you said it just the same.

And I'll say this once: Sure maybe that other random player isn't carrying ammunition for my particular gun. But if I only have 3 rounds left in my M4A1 then it is nearly worthless compared to that random stranger's AKM with a potentially full magazine. Changing the ammunition amount by such a large amount causes more killing, not less. People with melee weapons would bum-rush those with rifles more often at a chance to get their gun, empty or not, and that would cause yet MORE deaths. People would rather kill in games than not, and whether or not you are in the majority of that group means nothing when you are still a valid target.

And let's do the math. I have 8 magazines with 20 rounds each in my DMR at this moment. I picked up 1 magazine with the rifle, and found another along the way, and stole the last 6 from a random person that left 2 ATV's on Seattle 144 (I HAVE YOUR ATVS, give me a truck if you want them to live!!!)

I have fired 10 shots total, with 2 kills and 3 wounded confirmed (those wounded disconnected) as well as 2 zombie kills, one of whom happened to block a round intended for another player. I have 160 rounds total. Limited to 90% less ammunition still gives me another 6 rounds to kill potential loot-bags in and around my view range. Due to my shortage of ammunition, I and many others would be MORE likely to kill players for their weapons as they could have ammunition I am lacking, or a full gun ready for renewed PvP.

But hey, it's not like you said you want less ammunition to promote cooperation. Oh wait...

Oh, and it would be "More willing to use firearms on each other, but less able". They would say they are going to trade, then land an axe in your skull at their earliest convience. Have fun, humanity isn't the nice, mild-mannered group of hippies you think they are.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Zeromentor

[Ankhenaten 111]

I like shooting stuff though :lol:

[KnT47r 51]

"humanity isn't the nice, mild-mannered group of hippies you think they are"

Best quote evar, congrats - you've made my sig

Edited July 13, 2012 by KnT47r

[Zeromentor 169]

"humanity isn't the nice, mild-mannered group of hippies you think they are"

Best quote evar, congrats - you've made my sig

W00T!

[tomany 7]

Zombies need to be a HELL of a lot stronger to justify the reduction of ammo. Currently as it is, it's easy to lose zombies through LoS, and they are so weak that they aren't even a threat, to me and my friends, they are no worse than a mosquito in a silk farm. The only real tense situations are when we go through Cherno, Elekrto, B-Zino, or N/W airfield, where players usually reside, and can kill. Unless the zombies become stronger, there is no point in even saving ammo for them, the only time we have to shoot them is when we are stuck in a house with only one entrance, and that is usually a firehouse, so we go on the ladder from the 3rd floor, and escape without a scratch.

TL;DR, Zombies are too weak, Players are the only thing to fear currently.

[trashcanman 15]

But hey, it's not like you said you want less ammunition to promote cooperation. Oh wait...

Oh, and it would be "More willing to use firearms on each other, but less able". They would say they are going to trade, then land an axe in your skull at their earliest convience. Have fun, humanity isn't the nice, mild-mannered group of hippies you think they are.

That's fine. That's not shooting each other on sight like this is Quake.

Your argument is stupid and it's disingenous. You keep harping on how you'll be "more likely" to kill people with limited ammo. But in referring to other players as "loot bags" you've made it pretty clear you're going to kill another player 100% of the time. There's no more likely than 100%.

You're also saying completely contradictory things in your post. First you say "Changing the ammunition amount by such a large amount causes more killing, not less." Then at the end you say "More willing to use firearms on each other, but less able."

How can you be less able to kill, but there be more overall killing? You're not making sense. Less bullets means less dying. You don't like it because for you it means less killing.

I agree OP there's too much ammo. Ammo is the one thing in the game you can get "enough" of. After you've been alive for enough time, it's almost never the case you find yourself even worrying about ammo.

[kaylo 11]

WAAAAAAAAAAA MAKE AMMO RARE AND MAKE GUNS INTO BOWS THAT DO 1 HEART ON EACH HIT

[Zeromentor 169]

That's fine. That's not shooting each other on sight like this is Quake.

Your argument is stupid and it's disingenous. You keep harping on how you'll be "more likely" to kill people with limited ammo. But in referring to other players as "loot bags" you've made it pretty clear you're going to kill another player 100% of the time. There's no more likely than 100%.

You're also saying completely contradictory things in your post. First you say "Changing the ammunition amount by such a large amount causes more killing, not less." Then at the end you say "More willing to use firearms on each other, but less able."

How can you be less able to kill, but there be more overall killing? You're not making sense. Less bullets means less dying. You don't like it because for you it means less killing.

I agree OP there's too much ammo. Ammo is the one thing in the game you can get "enough" of. After you've been alive for enough time, it's almost never the case you find yourself even worrying about ammo.

To further my point and try to clear things up, I mean the players will want to kill other players more often for the chance at a gun with ammunition, but due to lack of ranged weapons might instead use melee weapons to do the killing. Plus, some people would rather let the other players go, and never interact with them. But those same players let those leave because they have nothing they want. What if the watching player KNOWS they need something from a town, but does not have the ammunition to fend off a group of zombies, but DOES have enough rounds to kill another player for the AK74 Kobra he is packing, which MIGHT have enough ammo in it.

I didn't contradict myself, you just didn't get the point I'm trying to make. Less ammo is fine, to a point. Too little means people will start to kill each other MORE often for ammo, which is rare. Go look at what happened when food became rare due to a bugged drop. Or morphine. What happened? Mass killings.

People have shown time and time again they will resort to KILLING, and not working together when under pressure. They work together when they feel safe, and lack of resources makes them stressed out, which brings the need to fulfill that need, which means they will actively hunt and kill players for filling that need.

IE: More killing, even with less ammunition.

Don't get me wrong, as I've said many times, less to a certain amount is fine (Say 50% less) but too much causes players that once ignored others and went their own way to start actively going to heavy player areas (cities) and in turn they spend more time killing players out of self-defense, or for hunting for the rare supply of whatever (See: Food, in past patches). That, and the close confines of those spaces make sure people are more likely to kill each other quickly, with less ammo wasted (or none at all, with melee weapons). Those in the woods would have to turn back to players or the cities when their meat-harvesting is blocked by lack of ammo, or an axe that has finally been used too much.

So yeah, you start to force players into one another, which causes them to KILL each other for a limited resource, not work together. Some might, most won't.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Zeromentor

[Ankhenaten 111]

How can you be less able to kill, but there be more overall killing? You're not making sense. Less bullets means less dying. You don't like it because for you it means less killing.

If a resource is less available it becomes more desirable. While your risk of wasting a bullet increases so does the reward if the target has the required item, After having been shot several times I also realised that cooperation is weak. Shoot first.

Simple Game Theory. (not Video Game Theory ;) )

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Game_theory

Coop is cool when I can trust. If I am alone, if I am first to shoot, I survive. So I shoot now 100% of the time first. Loot is a secondary advantage.

If surrounded by psycho and sociopaths you have to act like one to survive. Sad but true.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Ankhenaten

[kaylo 11]

To further my point and try to clear things up, I mean the players will want to kill other players more often for the chance at a gun with ammunition, but due to lack of ranged weapons might instead use melee weapons to do the killing. Plus, some people would rather let the other players go, and never interact with them. But those same players let those leave because they have nothing they want. What if the watching player KNOWS they need something from a town, but does not have the ammunition to fend off a group of zombies, but DOES have enough rounds to kill another player for the AK74 Kobra he is packing, which MIGHT have enough ammo in it.

I didn't contradict myself, you just didn't get the point I'm trying to make. Less ammo is fine, to a point. Too little means people will start to kill each other MORE often for ammo, which is rare. Go look at what happened when food became rare due to a bugged drop. Or morphine. What happened? Mass killings.

People have shown time and time again they will resort to KILLING, and not working together when under pressure. They work together when they feel safe, and lack of resources makes them stressed out, which brings the need to fulfill that need, which means they will actively hunt and kill players for fill that need.

IE: More killing, even with less ammunition.

Don't get me wrong, as I've said many times, less to a certain amount is fine (Say 50% less) but too much causes players that once ignored others and went their own way to start actively going to heavy player areas (cities) and in turn they spend more time killing players out of self-defense, or for hunting for the rare supply of whatever (See: Food, in past patches). That, and the close confines of those spaces make sure people are more likely to kill each other quickly, with less ammo wasted (or none at all, with melee weapons). Those in the woods would have to turn back to players or the cities when their meat-harvesting is blocked by lack of ammo, or an axe that has finally been used too much.

So yeah, you start to force players into one another, which causes them to KILL each other for a limited resource, not work together. Some might, most won't.

youre bad at the game and you want it to be changed where you think youll be good. dayz is never going to be turned into minecraft

[Ving (DayZ) 1]

how bout encumberance?

Maybe tone the ammo down a bit, but add encumberance... you wanna carry all that gear and ammo if you eventually find it? Ok your slow now. Get to it snail boy. Good luck outrunning zeds with that 80 lbs backpack....

Edited July 13, 2012 by Ving

[trashcanman 15]

I didn't contradict myself, you just didn't get the point I'm trying to make.

No I understand it completely it's just a bad point is all.

You're saying a scarcity of ammo will increase murders. I'm saying that the murder rate is already nearly 100% meaning nearly all current players across all servers are basically shooting on sight 100% of the time.

There's not "more" murder than that. Do you get that? A reduction in ammo can not cause "more" murders, when there's already "the most" murders.

Edited July 13, 2012 by trashcanman

[Ankhenaten 111]

youre bad at the game and you want it to be changed where you think youll be good. dayz is never going to be turned into minecraft

Nah it's risk assessment and economy 101..

[Ankhenaten 111]

No I understand it completely it's just a bad point is all.

You're saying a scarcity of ammo will increase murders. I'm saying that the murder rate is already nearly 100% meaning nearly all current players across all servers are basically shooting on sight 100% of the time.

There's not "more" murder than that. Do you get that? A reduction in ammo can not cause "more" murders, when there's already "the most" murders.

Chance encounter at 100% is not chance encounter 100% + active search for players and they get killed 100%.