Firearms Should Not Be The Main Instrumentality Of DayZ

[Apanthropy 11]

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

This is definitely one of the biggest reasons why there's so much PKing, I think. Right now, as the game is currently, I can spawn as a fresh character and survive for basically an unlimited amount of time on my own if I wanted, given there were no other players. Literally the only thing threatening the life of any decent player is other players, as nothing else is actually much of a threat.

[vesmo 21]

Because your "anecdotal experience" is worth more?

It's always the same people that are bitching and moaning about the PvP, they also happen to be pretty vocal about it. Taking the temperature of this forum is pointless anyway, anyone can join and create 1, 10, 100 accounts to validate their jaded point of view.

And it's also the same people that vehemently defend the current state the PvP is in...why for the love of fuck can't people try and see some compromises in there :rolleyes: . The whole suggestion of reducing ammo spawns isn't JUST about PvP. It's to make the WHOLE GAME more immersive/enjoyable. Now granted enjoyment is a relative case dependent on the individual, but if we go down that road we might as well argue that everyone on these forums is open to make their own mod that is exactly the way they want it to be. And I doubt the current state of affairs is where rocket intends to leave it.

(also, harder zeds and less ammo would be kinda awesome as the game would once again pose some sort of challenge...and gratification when you overcome those challenges)

[hoak 27]

Because your "anecdotal experience" is worth more?

No, because I've administered a DayZ server and numbers corroborate what the vast majority are saying on the forums...

It's always the same people that are bitching and moaning about the PvP, they also happen to be pretty vocal about it.

On the contrary, I see a lot of constructive suggestions in this thread and many others; where as posters like you use all sorts of material fallacies and personal attacks as if they're supposed to be accepted as valid arguments...

Taking the temperature of this forum is pointless anyway, anyone can join and create 1, 10, 100 accounts to validate their jaded point of view.

That would be an abrogation of the TOU you accepted when you registered here and IP.Board allows for banning the creation of multiple accounts -- please enough with the hit and run trolling -- everyone knows how you 'feel', if you have a valid argument to make -- make it...

:rolleyes:

[leestandin@live.com 21]

Bumping this back up because i feel its a good idea.

wouldn't this make people less gungho about engaging zombies and make them actually try to avoid running into town and just shooting it up ?

wouldn't this make players less willing to open fire at the first sign of a person if he had about 10 rounds for an AK ?

It's just an idea but i think the game would be more about surviving a zombie apocolypse rather than killing everything and everyone in it.

[Golgo82 28]

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...

:)

I play DayZ with a few people, we know each other IRL andsince we started playing we have come to the conclusion that trusting *anybody* outside of our group is out of the question if we do not know of their intentions/reputation. This comes from the simple fact, that everyone of us has been killed by anyone who has crossed our paths, no matter of our status (armed/unarmed, bleeding out, fleeing from Zeds, etc).

There are groups that i would not shoot on sight, like the Freeside Trading Corp, the team around Dr. Wasteland and the Walking Militia(if i recall their name correctly) but those are(at least i presume they are) US Groups/Clans, since im from the EU, there is no such thing on the servers I have been playing on.

We will kill anybody that poses a threat to us, which basically means, anybody with a gun heading into the same general direction we do.

And there are lots of situations where we run low on ammo..and especially in those situations (im currently running low on FN FAL mags) we tend to go outside of our way to dispatch of people wearing stuff that might have come from a crashed heli or the airfield so i have the possibility to restock on FN FAL ammo without having to go to these places.

The less ammo you have the more you will tend to not openly attack and engage in long drawn out fisticuffs(with guns) but to ambush people and kill them with as little shots as possible as fast as possible so these confrontations are over before they knew what hit them.

The thought that limiting supplies of *any* kind will make people cooperate instead of killing each other is outright delusional, especially when people are running around in groups (2+ people) because they literally don't need another mouth to feed that might backstab them in the end.

I do agree that there should be more cooperation, but that goal cannot be accomplished by limiting supplies, Instead the goal should be to give players the ability to accomplish more (or live longer) when they work together, including all those really good ideas like making splints to mend broken bones, being able to carry/support wounded people to make them mobile again as well as the ability to build underground bunkers/safehouses or barricade buldings with wood. But until new options to really cooperate in the long term are introduced into the game, there will be no significant decrease in the KoS policy most people currently employ.

[starwarsfan@gmx.de 450]

Limiting Ammunition will only support loot campers and the sort because they will have all the ammo and guns, everyone else(casual players) will be unable to stand up to those people.

My two cents.

[hoak 27]

The thought that limiting supplies of *any* kind will make people cooperate instead of killing each other is outright delusional, especially when people are running around in groups (2+ people) because they literally don't need another mouth to feed that might backstab them in the end.

That you obviously have not played DayZ for very long, don't understand cause and effect, or game design does not make other people 'delusional'... Trascanman's illustration -- reduces this so that anyone can understand the mechanics:

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.

Or, explore a realistic scenario, with realistically finite ammunition: your squad that plays together is unlucky, you only managed to forage enough ammunition for one or two round for half your team's weapons, the other half may have firearms (a threat) but no ammunition... You encounter another player, who is armed with an AK47 with a full magazine (a rare situation) who could easily dispatch your entire squad if he's as experienced in ArmA games as many of us are, however, no one KNOWS how much ammo anyone has or does not have -- what is known is that ammunition is SCARCE, it's a given premise to every action in the game; it's hard to find, and due to constant challenges like hunting food, the surprise encounter with a Zed you run out fast of the little you find...

When DayZ was new, there were only a few servers, and most didn't know their way around the game -- Players thought about consequences, felt remorse, and killing another Player was very risky, or at best a resource depleting proposition as you didn't know where when or even if you were going to find more ammunition -- as it would be if you really found yourself in this situation...

Now the game is as most people complain: death match -- hundreds of players, thousands of posts, and actual server statistics corroborate this -- and those of us that survive a long time (like me) only do so by killing everyone they see, and my 400:1 KDR is no point of pride, it's a sore spot of well learned disappointment and frustration...

:|

Edited July 16, 2012 by Hoak

[fundan@gmx.de 82]

The world you lived in has become a nightmare. Infected people try to eat you around every corner. I guess getting a weapon and ammo might be on top of your list - right after clothes and food?

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

No, because I've administered a DayZ server and numbers corroborate what the vast majority are saying on the forums...

Oh, Well sorry i guess we all have to take your word as fact then.

On the contrary, I see a lot of constructive suggestions in this thread and many others; where as posters like you use all sorts of material fallacies and personal attacks as if they're supposed to be accepted as valid arguments...

That one goes both ways.

That would be an abrogation of the TOU you accepted when you registered here and IP.Board allows for banning the creation of multiple accounts -- please enough with the hit and run trolling -- everyone knows how you 'feel', if you have a valid argument to make -- make it...

:rolleyes:

Yeah like a "Term of use" ever stopped anyone on the internet.

I don't even know why i'm debating with you, you do not present any arguments worth my time.

:rolleyes:

[hoak 27]

Oh, Well sorry i guess we all have to take your word as fact then.

Nope, but DayZ's Developer have access to the same data -- it doesn't matter what you choose to accept or ignore...

Yeah like a "Term of use" ever stopped anyone on the internet.

The forum should auto-ban you, go ahead, try it, let us know how it works out....

I don't even know why i'm debating with you, you do not present any arguments worth my time.

Because you like to troll and like attention, and because you haven't taken exception to one argument made in this thread for deemphasizing weapons and adding realism to the game...

:rolleyes:

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

DayZ is presenting a zombie survival scenario, in most of the good zombie movies and stories it's nearly as much a story about survivor to survivor interactions as it is about survivor to zombie interaction. Zombies provide a common threat that is very close to humanity, in the sense that your best friend or your loved one might turn and then you will have to "dispose" of him.

Signaling your friendlyness is difficult in DayZ because nothing can ensure you, or me that this gun is staying down, unless you basically drop it to the ground.

But so is it in real life, if i recall, law enforcement consider anything that "looks" like a gun to be a gun loaded with live amunitions. You can explain all you want that it's a fake or that it's not loaded, they will only stop threatening you once you drop it.

As for letality, well DayZ isn't exactly an RPG, a single bullet will down you in the real world, if it doesn't outright kill you, and that's what Arma simulates. It's common in arma to get killed by an enemy soldier ( human or ai alike ) that you didn't see, couldn't see, and couldn't have defended against.

There simply IS no depth in real firefights, you can strategise all you want but ultimate it all boil down to who shoot the other first.

It IS difficult to expect a civilized behavior from other people in a lawless simulation. Why do i have to trade with you if i can just as well shiv you and take your stock? Look at prison criminality as a good example of how a person can seriously hurt another for very little.

The unlimited item pickup is a limitation of the system, we need food, ammo and drinks in this game. Loot spawn is a simplified mechanic to distribute it to the different players, feel free to suggest a system that behave more realistically ( just toss fairness out of the window tho ). If you increae scarcity you also will make those that are at the top of the foodchain much more dangerous to those at the bottom of it.

It's already the case in a way. Newly spawned players are much less of a threat to eachothers since the makarov removal, and that's a good thing, but they are much more vulnerable to pretty much anyone.

Sure, using our brains is a great thing for survival, but it is not everything, there is a reason why we say "survival of the fittest". In the case of DayZ i'd say it's about being bold and taking actions. You can be as intelligent as you want, if in the middle of the action you are paralyzed and unable to take matters in your own hands, you are useless.

Zombie movies, and non zombie movies often portray two enemies face to face, each one pointing his gun at the other while they are verbally jousting, or trying to convince the other to team up.

As much as i like this kind of cinematic tensions, this can never happen in a non staged situation.

[OW22 21]

What I really don't understand is everyone saying that they can trust no one. In DayZed, a lot of people actually let you live. Those people... are ninjas. That's right, when you went skulking into town looking for beans, a fellow watched over you, waiting for you to pass. You just didn't see him. As long as you didn't see him, he didn't have a problem with it. You weren't worth his life.

So yeah, people do let you live.

Before you go and argue with me that I'm against the idea of the thread, let me lay down this:

They had no incentive to let you live. They didn't have to, yet they did. One bullet to the brain would've done it, yet they chose to let you pass. It's just random.

So say this did happen AND it worked as intended. Now Mr. Ninja has incentive to let you survive. Now more Mr. Ninjas are letting more people survive. Or, more Mr. Ninjas are waiting for just the right time to take a shot- and misses. Mr. Ninja is no longer a god with iron death coming at you at 5000 feet per second in good quantity. Now it's you against Mr. Ninja. Even if you lose, it was a good fight, and he needed what you had.

You have to give credit to the player-angels that we don't see.

[OW22 21]

-snip-

Two. Words.

Player callouts.

How long have I waited until the day rocket records some voices to use for these.... Many days. The point would be that if you didn't have a microphone, your player would yell out something based on a button on the keyboard bound to an audio file. Say you wanted to tell someone you're friendly? Press 'p'.

I know it isn't perfect. I know people will still kill you. I know that there are ArmA voice packs, but I tell you that it helps! From all your standpoints; the ones whom have shared it, you say you kill because you can't trust them, and because you have no reassurance.

Let me tell you, 'p' is all they way on the other side of the keyboard. Is someone going to try and get close to you and then press 'p' just so he can tell you he's friendly if he's ACTUALLY going to shoot you?

No, he's going to take his chances of staying in cover and killing you with 1 shot.

"Well what if he decieves you and shoots you in the back?" That's your fault. It's always a gamble, but there are people you can trust. As soon as you two establish a friendly "knowing" relationship, you should split. Teaming up should only happen if you ask him to call you on Skype.

So what happened? No one died, and no one lost a bullet.

Again, this is not a global fix. People will still kill eachother and s*** will still go down. But do some people make it through unscathed? Yes, they do, and that's the point.

[m1lkm8n 61]

But killing people is my business.....and business is good!

[hoak 27]

None of which justify having the a magical infinite/growing ammunition supply, obviates the fact that most playing DayZ play it like slow motion random respawn death match, or in Kyrah's remarks are even reflection of anything factually correct or germane -- I do appreciate the bump though...

:)

[texcat11 11]

On the point of not being able to signify friendly intentions, I have come up with two things that I know have been used, and work. Salute, "\" used commonly among some servers to identify friendlies. And another is green smoke. Although you may have to be careful with the smoke because it can draw in bandits. Even in MineZ I have seen players say they are friendly and kill each other so its just a matter of the people you meet.

[KrystoferRobin 67]

I have a hatchet. GG Zeds. GG. Guns are solely for dealing with players. Once I got familiar with the way the hatchet functions, I happily grab them up by the armload. I have survived hours, even days, with only a hatchet and a revolver.

Dropping the ammo count.... Not until the zeds aren't such spastic assclowns. If they had more fluid movement, even if it's fast movement, sure, lower the ammo count. That still doesn't stop you from hoarding ammunition for a few hours or days preparing for your 10 minute deathmatch at the airfield.

My first few lives were ended by zeds. after that, only the 1 random time I got slapped just once, while at full health in perfect condition, and the zed broke my leg and KO'd me have I died, or even come CLOSE to dying from them. They aren't even an annoyance. Once I was half familiar with their wandering patterns, and comfortable with an axe, the best they can hope to do is keep me an extra few meters behind cover. By the logic here, if the lowliest melee weapon complete negates the zed threat, it needs to be nerfed. We haven't even gotten to the firearms yet.

I don't feel any of the weaponry is out of place, over powered, or in need of adjustment. The infected serve as a catalyst, not a protagonist. The best of the zombie/related films illustrate this quite clearly, and has to me always been the POINT of them. The zombies aren't scary, in the least. The other survivors are where the fear comes in. Yes, they CAN get you if you make some seriously fucked up choices, but even completely unarmed, they are no threat whatsoever if you have even the slightest bit of greymatter floating around. It's the fucked up shit the survivors are willing to do to continue surviving. If that, to you, is just a "deathmatch with inventory and zombies thrown in" then perhaps DayZ is not the right place to pass your time. Myself, and thousands of other people, bandit and survivor alike, are quite content with the way things are. Even in the zombie apocalypse, HUMANS are the top predator, and thus, the top threat.

Disagreement based on your anecdotal experience is immaterial -- you apparently have no idea what the PvP death-match statistics look like... DayZ as it's currently played by most players is unfortunately a death match game, it's also the most frequent complaint on the forums; go figure...

:rolleyes:

I'm glad you know precisely how many times every single player has had another survivor in their sights and NOT fired on them. You can't bullshit bullshiters.

Edited July 16, 2012 by KrystoferRobin

[problematique 5]

I understand that you are coming from a more "Realistic" background for the game, but the problem is, it IS a GAME. If you are just crawling around zombies looking for food, rather than shooting them when you can, the game just gets boring and more of a hassel to play rather than fun and entertaining. The mod needs to find a perfect marriage of Realism and Fun, thats ammo is the way it is.

-Problematique

[OW22 21]

I understand that you are coming from a more "Realistic" background for the game, but the problem is, it IS a GAME. If you are just crawling around zombies looking for food, rather than shooting them when you can, the game just gets boring and more of a hassel to play rather than fun and entertaining. The mod needs to find a perfect marriage of Realism and Fun, thats ammo is the way it is.

-Problematique

I dunno, don't you think that if we could craft bows and arrows and retrieve them (and I think you might be able to retrieve bolts with a crossbow already, but I'm not sure) ammo for conventional guns could afford to be more scarce? Of course, people would still be able to get a mag or two easily enough, but the weapon that you'll be using most would be the bow (except when you see another player), especially since it's silent, and can be recycled.

Melee weapons could use some cleaning up too, and that would definitely give way to being able to have a little less ammo. Not like Talahassee finding the last Twinkie scarce, but like finding 3-6 random ammo mags in a small town with say 10-20 buildings (counting for enterable and non-enterable).

It's possible, and no doubt it would make things a bit more fun to have something like that happen.

Even so, remember when you had no more weapons on spawn? People died. A lot. Then they adapted. The same thing will happen here. No doubt people b****ed about it when rocket took away their precious peice, but it's still here now, isn't it?

Edited July 16, 2012 by OW22

[hoak 27]

I'm glad you know precisely how many times every single player has had another survivor in their sights and NOT fired on them. You can't bullshit bullshiters.

First, of all you don't need to know 'how many times every single player has had another survivor in their sights and NOT fired on them', mean time to live, shots fired & hits on players vs zed will tell the story -- all statistics easily ascertained in ArmA II. You did know that right?

Second, I admin a server, there's no need to bullshit the Trolls -- but if you guys bump the thread enough I'm sure Rocket will be inspired enough to take a look at the global statistics, and then notice that the number of Veteran Fans of DayZ that want the experience the mod originally offered back easily outnumber those that like the current CoD derivative death match -- and realize ArmA II will serve them better in that regard.

Third, unless you're a total imbecile, you'd have noticed the MTBD has been between twelve and and twenty-nine minutes, with the vast majority dieing from PvP contacts.

:rolleyes:

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

First, of all you don't need to know 'how many times every single player has had another survivor in their sights and NOT fired on them', mean time to live, shots fired & hits on players vs zed will tell the story -- all statistics easily ascertained in ArmA II. You did know that right?

Second, I admin a server, there's no need to bullshit the Trolls -- but if you guys bump the thread enough I'm sure Rocket will be inspired enough to take a look at the global statistics, and then notice that the number of Veteran Fans of DayZ that want the experience the mod originally offered back easily outnumber those that like the current CoD derivative death match -- and realize ArmA II will serve them better in that regard.

Third, unless you're a total imbecile, you'd have noticed the MTBD has been between twelve and and twenty-nine minutes, with the vast majority dieing from PvP contacts.

:rolleyes:

One thig you have to keep in mind is that this mod is not a democracy, this is a "suggestion" forum, not a "community vote" forum. Ultimately Rocket will do what the hell he wants with his mod, wether it ends up pushing away a part of the community or not. What is up with people who always assume that modders wish to please their community at any price, modders start their project first and foremost for themselve, not for you, me or anyone else.

Thinking that something will happen jsut because "the majority wants it" is kidding yourself.

From my experience as a game designer, there is one thing players are extremely good at, it's making bad suggestions. A player generally see the game from his own little corner of it and fail to grasp the big picture of how the different mechanics interact with eachothers.

They also generally fail to grasp the vision of the developpers which is not always obvious or in line with what the players think the game is about.

An example, i played a mars colony simulation beta game, you could play with 4 other players and had various objectives to fullfill. Initially you think having everyone out and about is the most efficient way to do things. Then you realise you need a player at any time in the main module to warn the others in the event of a storm and to quickly fix eventual breaks in the life support systems.

When a storm hit, everyone HAS to find shelter until the storm end and there is basically nothing to do until then. That was a concious design decision to make players interact with eachothers and talk during this time but so many moaned and thought "storms should be shorter".

[OW22 21]

One thig you have to keep in mind is that this mod is not a democracy, this is a "suggestion" forum, not a "community vote" forum. Ultimately Rocket will do what the hell he wants with his mod, wether it ends up pushing away a part of the community or not. What is up with people who always assume that modders wish to please their community at any price, modders start their project first and foremost for themselve, not for you, me or anyone else.

Thinking that something will happen jsut because "the majority wants it" is kidding yourself.

From my experience as a game designer, there is one thing players are extremely good at, it's making bad suggestions. A player generally see the game from his own little corner of it and fail to grasp the big picture of how the different mechanics interact with eachothers.

They also generally fail to grasp the vision of the developpers which is not always obvious or in line with what the players think the game is about.

An example, i played a mars colony simulation beta game, you could play with 4 other players and had various objectives to fullfill. Initially you think having everyone out and about is the most efficient way to do things. Then you realise you need a player at any time in the main module to warn the others in the event of a storm and to quickly fix eventual breaks in the life support systems.

When a storm hit, everyone HAS to find shelter until the storm end and there is basically nothing to do until then. That was a concious design decision to make players interact with eachothers and talk during this time but so many moaned and thought "storms should be shorter".

I understand what you're saying. I do. But the thing is that basically you are saying "Don't even try.". Honestly, no one is going to go to the world's end to try and get rocket to put in their ideas, except the REALLY ignorant ones who have not the slightest idea what they're doing.

Basically, what you are saying is that we shouldn't even post, because it doesn't matter, rocket will do what he wants. Rocket has read the forums before and put in ideas from people, whether they be small or large. Everyone here KNOWS that it might not happen. That doesn't matter. The fact is that it COULD happen. We shouldn't listen to you telling us not to voice our opinions.

"Storms should be shorter" Um, yes, because we are here in this thread asking for a teddy bear item that gives you invincibility when you hug it. We are here asking night time to be brighter. We want zombies to actually need less damage to kill, and we want to have more blood. Actually, we want to make it harder for ourselves, and get more of an experience.

The more of a constant challenge it is the more you want to overcome it. Some of these ideas in the suggestion thread might not be great, but oh well. Who cares? Why bother replying when you know it's never going to happen anyway? When it does, then you have a problem. Then you can go whine.

These suggestions help both indirectly and directly. Why? It helps directly by showing rocket what the community wants, so he can work with or around it. Again, he's not going to be our french maid, but he isn't going to disregard us completely and with a snarl of disgust. It helps indirectly by showing rocket what the community thinks of the game, and may even show him things he has not seen himself. He can work around them, improve them, take them out, add them, or whatever he so wishes.

Tell you what, worse comes to worst, the ideas aren't implemented in. *looks around, shrugs shoulders* So... what then? There's no harm done.

Edited July 17, 2012 by OW22

[hoak 27]

One thig you have to keep in mind is that this mod is not a democracy, this is a "suggestion" forum, not a "community vote" forum.

I'm sure everyone is glad you finally figured that out...

:lol:

Edited July 17, 2012 by Hoak