Firearms Should Not Be The Main Instrumentality Of DayZ

[Zeromentor 169]

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

Learn to read please.

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.

Murder rates are not 100% nor is it close. I don't kill everyone I see, nor am I killed by everyone that sees me. You are over exaggerating that number. People shoot on sight when they are with groups of friends, so outsiders are not allowed in. People get jumpy when they see someone with a gun running at them, and when they are alone they react with violence more often to a potential threat. But as it is the only people that kill everyone they are as those rare clan-enabled bandits that only do so because they have camps backing up their ammo supply and gear refills when they die. Dropping the Ammunition drop rate to such low ammos wouldn't really slow them in the slightest, and instead those players that don't want to engage others if they don't have to will either be forced away from towns (due to lack of ammo) or will be forced INTO towns (due to lack of ammo). Those outside stay outside until thier lack of ammunition starts to endanger their survival chances when compared to going into a town, where they WILL find people looking for ammo, which they are probably carrying.

I think the point is clear, extreme decrease in ammo spawns will do the same thing the food-bug did. Increase murders. Meaning the point to limit murders by limited the amount of ammo that is around actually defeats the purpose.

EDIT: I am very tired, and my spelling errors show that. So this is probably going to be my last post on this thread. Probably, though, does not mean 100% guaranteed.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Zeromentor

[Ankhenaten 111]

The evolution of altruism might be interesting to some here.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?rlz=1C1DSGP_enGB488GB488&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1DSGP_enGB488GB488&sclient=psy-ab&q=evolution+of+altruism&oq=evolution+of+altruism&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i30l2.10529.16667.0.16954.3.3.0.0.0.0.65.123.2.2.0...0.0...1c.cbWpJK27ZkA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=d55c834638869cc9&biw=1024&bih=707

[Turnipski 3]

Seems like there are a lot of claims/assumptions being made about what effect various things will have. Are you guys actually keeping track of the stats on PKs and how theychange over time? I doubt it. So I'd be interested to see some graphs of the causes of players death and how that has changed between patches. Why not try changing the ammo spawn rates just to see what happens? If there is no change, then great we now know that prevalence of ammo has no effect on PK volume and it can always change back. This is meant to be an experiment after all.

That said, my prediction like most others is that I'm not convinced reducing ammo would reduce PKs (although I would like less ammo just to make it harder anyway). My opinion is that the prevalence of PKing is a viscous cycle that can only be stopped by enabling players to create stronger communities within servers more easily via instruments other than guns! That doesn't mean changing guns is the answer, but it might be so I think it should be tried.

[saltedfish 2]

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

Let's keep the ad hominim arguments to a minimum.

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....

It might be that Amra doesn't support a "weight" value for the inventory system; as it stands space is fairly limited, and I believe that is what is intended to prevent people from carrying 435983749857349857 rounds for their rifles.

I think we've all hashed over the fact that reducing the amount of ammunition very likely won't reduce the number of PKs. As has been pointed out numerous times, reducing the amount of ammo turns it into a desired commodity which will then prompt players to kill each other for more ammo.

One could argue, though, that this might not be the case since while it is true that the scarcity would prompt players to want it and collect it, but then what would you be collecting the ammo for? Are you going to spend hours hunting down other players and scraping a mag together for your assault rifle, only to spend it in one burst at some guy on a hill? Seems like a waste of time to me. While it is true that since it becomes a valued commodity, demand for it will increase, there has to be a demand for it in the first place. As we've pointed out, the only reason one would collect large amounts of ammunition is to kill other players since the zombies themselves hardly pose a threat. Not sure where this train of logic goes, but it's worth pursuing I think.

(On a side note, there is a little gray circle at the bottom of the posting field, and I keep thinking it is a peripheral vision dot.)

Since at this point it seems ridiculous to suggest limiting ammunition as a means of balancing the game and reducing the amount of PKs, we're back to square one. I still think that us 'carebears' deserve at least some consideration; not all of us want a deathmatch. As Undeadsteak pointed out, this is supposed to be a survival game, and it's true that dodging other people is part of survival, but right now the game is horribly skewed in their favor and it ends up with a (at least in part) double whammy for those of us who just want to enjoy the survival.

[trashcanman 15]

I think we've all hashed over the fact that reducing the amount of ammunition very likely won't reduce the number of PKs. As has been pointed out numerous times, reducing the amount of ammo turns it into a desired commodity which will then prompt players to kill each other for more ammo.

It has been pointed out but never justified.

Suppose the ultimate extreme of limited ammo: there is no ammo. Would that increase murders? No. Drastic decrease as you could run from any player just as you could a zombie.

So obviously some point exists at which a reduction in ammo does reduce murder and what you're saying is not true.

Now, maybe the game sucks when you reach that level of ammo scarcity, but it exists I promise. And I have a feeling if you tweaked it just right, you'd get the reduction in just pointless spree killing that some people are looking for, without removing any ability to fight in you need to or want to take someone's stuff.

Edited July 13, 2012 by trashcanman

[Zeromentor 169]

It has been pointed out but never justified.

Suppose the ultimate extreme of limited ammo: there is no ammo. Would that increase murders? No. Drastic decrease as you could run from any player just as you could a zombie.

So obviously some point exists at which a reduction in ammo does reduce murder and what you're saying is not true.

Now, maybe the game sucks when you reach that level of ammo scarcity, but it exists I promise. And I have a feeling if you tweaked it just right, you'd get the reduction in just pointless spree killing that some people are looking for, without removing any ability to fight in you need to or want to take someone's stuff.

You almost get it. There is a point where something good becomes something bad.

90% is too much and creates more killing. 100% decreases killing, but creates a problem with a GUN-BASED combat system to be unused in a game where it is the near only working system (melee is very buggy). I agree that there is too much ammunition now. Finding assault rifles with 4 magazines next to them is a bit much. But a drop of 50% is fine. 4 becomes 2, and 2 becomes 1. People have what is needed to defend themselves or hunt players, and can change depending. But are less willing (though it doesn't STOP the willingness) to fire at random things.

Clans pretty much are unaffected due to how many of them get their ammunition, which is by using extremely boring people to hunt down each and every magazine they can find, or duping it. This won't change for them.

So man, you need a middle ground stance. Too much is bad, too little is bad. We can see examples of this already ingame and in prior events in past patches.

[hoak 27]

Suppose the ultimate extreme of limited ammo: there is no ammo. Would that increase murders? No. Drastic decrease as you could run from any player just as you could a zombie.

So obviously some point exists at which a reduction in ammo does reduce murder and what you're saying is not true.

Now, maybe the game sucks when you reach that level of ammo scarcity, but it exists I promise. And I have a feeling if you tweaked it just right, you'd get the reduction in just pointless spree killing that some people are looking for, without removing any ability to fight in you need to or want to take someone's stuff.

Thank you Trashcanman, some here that may not be able to follow logical sequitur, do simple abstract problem solving, or understand basic gaming statistics should be able understand the point made the way you've made it.

:thumbsup:

Edited July 13, 2012 by Hoak

[trashcanman 15]

You almost get it. There is a point where something good becomes something bad.

Your examples of prior patches I don't think are as worth considering as you think due to the huge explosion of players into this game recently.

This game obviously started amongst a very small Arma II community. But now it's not that anymore. Now nearly every player encounter is hostile because so many indiscriminate PKs soured everyone to the idea of ever not killing someone they saw if they could.

If this game doesn't want anything more for itself than to be a milsim deathmatch game with a few shitty zombies walking around so be it. I didn't help make it it's not my place to say where to go with it.

I'll just not ever play it again if that's all they want from it. I want an awesome hardcore zombie survival game NOT a deathmatch milsim game with a few zombies half-heartedly thrown in, which is what this game is right now.

Survival is completely trival.

Edited July 13, 2012 by trashcanman

[saltedfish 2]

I would sincerely hope that no one would honestly suggest removing all ammo from the game (I understand that it was meant as an example, I merely want to nip this one in the bud before someone else thinks that we're serious about it).

Zeromentor is absolutely right, one extreme or the other is going to do no good whatsoever. A reducton, to a point, will surely reduce the majority of opportunistic kilings, but still won't dissuade the more persistant PKers from hunting other players.

Honestly, that would be a solution I'd be okay with. As long as the players who would otherwise take casual pot shots at someone running by are turned off of their sport (the opportunisitic PKers), I would be happy. I would still, of course, have to contend with the more hardcore PKers, but as long as I knew that their numbers were drastically reduced, I'd have a much better time of it. I've been killed by player fire three times now. Even a 50% reduction (generous, I know, but let's roll with it) would mean that I would have only died once and managed to crawl away to recuperate later the other time (?).

I think with a 50% reduction everyone goes home happy in one way or another. Us 'carebears' get griefed less and can focus more on survival rather than mindless scavenging for weapons to protect ourselves with, and the 'hunters' can still have their sport, although now they have to work a little harder for it.

Much better than having PvP servers and Survival servers, which is the only other solution that comes to mind.

[saltedfish 2]

Survival is completely trival.

This is the sad fact of the matter. Once you get a box of matches, a knife, hatchet and a water bottle, you're set for the rest of the game. The only remaining option left to you is to scavenge weapons and kill other players. I'm sure that as more content is released, this will become less so (I have happy visions of creating forts with other survivors and being besieged by zombies), but until then we'll have to wait it out.

If this game doesn't want anything more for itself than to be a milsim deathmatch game with a few shitty zombies walking around so be it. (...) I'll just not ever play it again if that's all they want from it.

While that's somewhat melodramatic, it's also very true. I wonder just how many people would leave the game if the PKing gets out of hand. It would be a terible thing since this game has so very much promise, but as it stands it really is a deathmatch with zombies thrown in. It's not even a good deathmatch, frankly, since it's designed to be much more tactical than other games.

Oh well, this is what happens when you forge a new path. It's hard and you stumble a lot. I just hope that the rest of you are as forgiving as I am.

[trashcanman 15]

I would sincerely hope that no one would honestly suggest removing all ammo from the game (I understand that it was meant as an example, I merely want to nip this one in the bud before someone else thinks that we're serious about it).

How about all but just one bullet....

But seriously I think even 50% might be too little. You'd have to play around with it probably.

Another thing that could help in a different way is separate mags and ammo. Instead of finding full mags, find partially full ones and then separately lose ammo and have to fill them up like you currently do with th shotgun ammo.

[hoak 27]

Your examples of prior patches I don't think are as worth considering as you think due to the huge explosion of players into this game recently.

This game obviously started amongst a very small Arma II community. But now it's not that anymore. Now nearly every player encounter is hostile because so many indiscriminate PKs soured everyone to the idea of ever not killing someone they saw if they could.

If this game doesn't want anything more for itself than to be a milsim deathmatch game with a few shitty zombies walking around so be it. I didn't help make it it's not my place to say where to go with it.

I'll just not ever play it again if that's all they want from it. I want an awesome hardcore zombie survival game NOT a deathmatch milsim game with a few zombies half-heartedly thrown in, which is what this game is right now.

Survival is completely trival.

Again, cogent, to the point and my sentiments exactly... I was up too late posting, responding, and reacting to take the argument by the horns and just shoot down all the invalid premises people are running with...

There are a lot of neck down Players in DayZ (and this thread) that would I'm sure be just as gratified playing as Zombies and get just as much out of the game -- go figure...

:)

[trashcanman 15]

It's not even a good deathmatch, frankly, since it's designed to be much more tactical than other games.

This is what personally gets me really frustrated.

Coming from the twich-FPS gaming side, this game is incomprehensively shitty. I mean it's really terrible. If you tried to put out a twitch-FPS game that played as jagged and laggy as this one does you wouldn't sell 100 copies.

I can stomach that shittiness because the game isn't a twitch-FPS but only if there's a great zombie game behind it. If it's just milsim pros who are like ex-military types who get off literally camping for like hours hoping I walk buy, then doing like range calculations to put a bullet in my head...well okay those guys win and I quit.

Edited July 13, 2012 by trashcanman

[hoak 27]

Personally, if ammunition was finite and realistically scarce, I wouldn't mind the motivated and calculating Sniper that stalks me for hours, and uses his one and only bullet to take me out of the game... But that a player can quickly gear up as fully outfitted Sniper complete with Gillie suite, state of the art rifle in perfect operating condition, enough ammunition and food to camp and kill with impunity for as long as he wants to play -- makes the current iteration of DayZ is as arcade and silly as it gets...

^_^

Edited July 13, 2012 by Hoak

[wartzilla 182]

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.

Please watch the presentation I linked, where Dean 'rocket' hall specifically states that the game is all about player interaction, whether good or bad, and not PvE. The game was never supposed to primarily be a PvE game. I'm wondering where people are getting this idea from, but it sure isn't from the designer.

[hoak 27]

Please watch the presentation I linked, where Dean 'rocket' hall specifically states that the game is all about player interaction, whether good or bad, and not PvE. The game was never supposed to primarily be a PvE game. I'm wondering where people are getting this idea from, but it sure isn't from the designer.

I'd bet that virtually everyone that posts on these forums watched that video the day it appeared... It warrants mention (as it's the point of this thread) that if your take on what Rocket is saying ergo 'all about player interaction' that PvP is only one interaction, the most primitive/simplistic, and the lowest bar to go under in terms of game design; it's also an interaction that ends all further interaction between two Players.

Unrealistic game mechanics including but certainly not limited to unlimited magical ammunition spawning everywhere all-the-time are without a doubt considerable enablers to the game current state of devolved, derivative, arcade death-match...

∆

[adamtheheretic 106]

Original post was great, two or three responses were too long.

Tl;dr

I like the idea of less munitions being available, as well as a lot of regular items because obviously those there before you would have eaten that tin of beans or drank that soda...

Edited July 13, 2012 by FishIsTwonk

[Jikfive 34]

Lowering ammunition count is not the answer. I believe that this would increase banditry. People would save their ammo to kill others to steal the ammo off of their corpses.

[hoak 27]

Lowering ammunition count is not the answer. I believe that this would increase banditry. People would save their ammo to kill others to steal the ammo off of their corpses.

What do you base that assumption on? How about just applying some simple deductive logic like:

Suppose the ultimate extreme of limited ammo: there is no ammo. Would that increase murders? No. Drastic decrease as you could run from any player just as you could a zombie.

So obviously some point exists at which a reduction in ammo does reduce murder and what you're saying is not true.

Now, maybe the game sucks when you reach that level of ammo scarcity, but it exists I promise. And I have a feeling if you tweaked it just right, you'd get the reduction in just pointless spree killing that some people are looking for, without removing any ability to fight in you need to or want to take someone's stuff.

Just Say'n...

[adamtheheretic 106]

Lowering ammunition count is not the answer. I believe that this would increase banditry. People would save their ammo to kill others to steal the ammo off of their corpses.

In all honesty, I don't see that as a point because... who cares? I'm fine with bandits, it's a smart choice to save ammo for people and steal their potential ammo. Less munitions just makes sense since the zombie apocalypse is in full swing and has obviously been around for a while before you magically arrive on the beach.

Edited July 13, 2012 by FishIsTwonk

[Volatyle 0]

Having played a bit of both survivor and bandit to get a true feel for more of the game, I don't think that reducing ammo by as much as 90% would be ideal.

For starters, let's look at realism. I live in Not-so-small town, USA. We have 3 Walmarts, 2 sporting good store, 3 gun shops, pawn shops, Farm and Ranch stores all easily in walking distance in a post-apocalyptic world. Each and every one of those has a very large supply of firearms and ammunitions for each weapon. Assuming some will be looted, I have a major, high risk metropolis not so far away with many, many more of all of the above. And this doesn't include personal stores of weapons/ammo that are readily available to any American over the age of 18 (21 in some cases). Heck, I even personally know 2 people with perfectly legal flamethrowers. All of that said, there is no lack of weapons near me, not including what is available in my house and even in my car, much less what I personally carry on me at all times. I could go a step further and add in all of the available reloading tools and supplies for weapons I have in my garage like many other wild game hunters.

Regarding attempting to make humanity, coexistance and trading more important, I completely agree that everyone sitting behind a computer is more likely to ignore their moral compass. There is nothing you can do that is going to remove the safety box they are playing in. I honestly shoot most people on sight in DayZ. I brought 4 real life friends into the game and since onset, we have made 9 other friends from playing online with them in DayZ. I constantly find people with gear I want, and sometimes, if I have decent support from a nearby hillside, I will even attempt to trade with players who have something I want. I traded a set of NVG's for a AS50 this way and it was enjoyable and nerve wracking to sit in the open and make the trade!

But friendliness aside, you have to protect you, your group, and your belongs as a number one priority before anything else. That means, if you stumble into my camp, I don't wave a hankerchief, I shoot to kill. If I see you first, I will generally shoot without question unless I feel I have the relative safety and upperhand to let you leave. Real life wouldn't be much different. If you saw someone watching you with a gun in their hands, are you going to take the time and risk your life to ask if they are friendly? Preservation will always come first. In real life, the better man doesn't always win, and contrary to movies/videogames/media, that's just how it is. I'd love peaceful coexistance. But it's not a very practical ideal when it means you have to risk yourself and hope for the best.

[hoak 27]

Having played a bit of both survivor and bandit to get a true feel for more of the game, I don't think that reducing ammo by as much as 90% would be ideal.

90% was an rough guesstimate based on how depopulated Chernarus is when you show upwith a max of 50 Players and 350 or so Zombies if I recall correctly... So only 400 standing means there was a hell of a lot of shooting going on on the island before you got there. Rather gruesome studies show that in massive depopulating warfare and genocide ammunition is quickly scarce and/or very difficult to find -- add to this we have fictional difficult to stop 'infected' that can at times be a quite bullet resistant..

If you wanted to-scale realism there would probably be a larger population then rounds of ammunition in inventory on the island (a little mental arithmetic most people just never do) making 90% less ammo rather generous... But in terms of game-play a realistic paucity of ammunition with more empty weapons than loaded would make for much more interesting and suspenseful game-play, rather then the current neck down, random respawn death-match...

Just say'n...

Edited July 13, 2012 by Hoak

[Volatyle 0]

Depending on whether you are the guy in Cherno/Elektro running around or the guy camping in the forest and only approaching civilization when absolutely necessary, this isn't just a "neck down, random respawn death-match." We constantly go dayz (sorry, couldn't help it) on end without encountering anyone when we attempt the survivalist approach to the game. Any time you have catastrophe you always have people taking advantage of the situation. You are always gonna have raiders/bandits/etc as some people with gladly steal from others rather than create or build.

But, I honestly think this is a matter of having different, and perfectly valid, opinions on where the game is, where it is going, and what we want out of it. A major part of the enjoyment for me is the suspense and the heart pounding of a near death encounter with someone shooting at me when I venture into a city. Unfortunately, for all of us to get what we want out of the game, we will need more options, accessibility and control over our own servers. As this is Alpha though, we are still a long way off from whatever the finished product is.

[Figs 2]

Firearms are modern instruments... so why wouldn't they be the focus of a modern zombie survival game?

If I saw someone wandering throughout a town with a rifle in their hands, I would assume their intentions are to kill. If you want a reaction, use what everyone does and get a microphone and start yelling "FRIENDLY FRIENDLY" and get yourself shot and told "I'm not"

"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."

If there was a disaster like a zombie virus outbreak, it is precisely what would happen.

[OW22 21]

Love this post, and the community. Most people that play this game actually ask for something to be harder, in contrast to the minecraft community that makes the game incredibly easy with all the requests to soften things up.

It seems to me there need to be some steps before anyone could consider this. First off, people need a way of identifying friendly players. I have suggested player callouts in my suggestion thread. You press a bound button on a keyboard to have your character in-game say something like "I'm friendly!" or "Are you a friend?". Once people can identify threats, you need a way that people can obtain more ammo in a different way than item respawns. Servers tend to get a lot of unique players. If those players go in, then there are new players, and all of them get some ammo, the ammo count runs out quickly. We would need a solution to get ammo in another way but the spawns that presumably give to much ammo out. If DayZ had classes, a "crafter" class may be an order to obtain bullets (but then you'd need a crafting table, smelter, and anvil and all that guff that would be impossible, not to mention bullets are made by many people at once or an assembly line, correct?). If not, bullets may have to be found on respawning zombies, or some different ingenious idea. Now we solved 2 problems: people murdering for no reason or being too scared to find out what the player will do, and running out of ammo on the entire server once it's all used. If DayZ becomes standalone, like Rocket said in the presentation at Razzed, putting working melee weapons in would be a good way to cut down on bullet usage, especially on zombies.

I'm not going to pass this as THE solution, and say problem solved. Obviously not. There are things I know I don't see as a problem, but with ideas like these if rocket and his team comes up with some, I'm sure he could put this feature in. Even though I'm usually running away from zombies that detect me now anyway, it'd sure be nice to have more of a reason to.