Bandit/Survivor Morphing to be removed

[Kolchak (DayZ) 5]

Nope' date=' nice try though. Haven't played EVE for almost 2 years now, spent time in all parts of space, got bored with it once I realized it wasn't actually fun, just became a second job. Friends still play it though, so I get to hear about all the ridiculous stories from that game, and man last year had some downright embarrassing ones. I could go on for hours about how the developers should really examine their chosen careers if they're just going to be walked all over by their customers, but that's a tangent.

And since you think this mod is only about PVP, I've got a few questions. Firstly, how exactly do you use a Book of Matches to kill someone on this game, or even better, the map, the compass, and the watch how do you do damage to another player with those. See I was under this impression that PVP was just a part of the mod, a very predictable and avoidable part, and that survival was the main goal. I might have been confused with the fact that on the main page instead of a leader board for kills, it has a counter for average lifespan. In my eyes that kind of said it all, made survival the one and only concrete goal, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me. I mean, I can point out how every single item in the game helps survival, so I'm sure just those few items up there won't be a problem for you.

[/quote']

So killing another player isnt an option for survival? I'ts just as viable as co-operation in certain situations. The point is that, killing players should not result in a skin change. Just like helping others should not result in a skin change.

If you have skin changes for player killers, in order to help people identify whos bad, then you should have skin changes to help identify whos good eh!?! Maybe a bright white suit and a halo?

No. Because then it just becomes far too easy to see whos good/bad. The element of paranoia and uncertainty that taking away these skin changes brings, is a good thing. Thats a very cool feature and it increases that feeling of "I need to survive" even more. I'm not some -50000 bandit serial killer, in fact I think my humanity is sat at -500 atm after one murder (Killed a guy who killed one of my m8s) and the lowest Ive been was about -4000 (I have 5 murders total). So I have actually spent a good portion of my time as a survivor.

Getting rid of the skins will bring more emotion and immersion to the game, or at the very least amplify it. The introduction of lootable skins is the best step forward, because it introduces individuality to the game, rather than just herding people into one of two categories, which is a very over simplified view.

So, ignoring the fact that you couldn't even counter my statements with anything rational, you're back on the creaky old "skin changes aren't realistic" bandwagon. Since you can't seem to answer any of the questions I'll just tell you: There's alot about this mod that isn't realistic and the only reason it's not realistic is because it wouldn't be any fun. How immersed can you be in a game where the person you just shot is back up and alive pissed off and searching for you about 30 seconds later? If all play styles are neither promoted or punished, what incentive do I have to keep me from sneaking into a good hiding place in a coastal town, waiting until I see a survivor or two, then creeping up and shooting them in the legs? Don't even have to kill them, the zombies will do it for me, once they're crippled, even faster if they shoot back. I know I'll just respawn, there is no actual death, so if I'm not going to get labeled a bandit, why not be the immortal zombie god of the shoreline? I'll loot a cleric skin or something, make it religious. Maybe I'll spout prophecy while I'm picking off people as I fancy, using zombies as my weapons, eternally being reborn. Sounds like realistic emotion and immersion right there.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Realistic arguments aside (see above) being assigned a different skin arbitrarily is not a fair mechanic. I'm glad it's going away.

TKJ

[MacNille 0]

I like it. It makes it more nervbreaking to play.

[Nitrous (DayZ) 0]

So' date=' ignoring the fact that you couldn't even counter my statements with anything rational, you're back on the creaky old "skin changes aren't realistic" bandwagon. Since you can't seem to answer any of the questions I'll just tell you: There's alot about this mod that isn't realistic and the only reason it's not realistic is because it wouldn't be any fun. How immersed can you be in a game where the person you just shot is back up and alive pissed off and searching for you about 30 seconds later? If all play styles are neither promoted or punished, what incentive do I have to keep me from sneaking into a good hiding place in a coastal town, waiting until I see a survivor or two, then creeping up and shooting them in the legs? Don't even have to kill them, the zombies will do it for me, once they're crippled, even faster if they shoot back. I know I'll just respawn, there is no actual death, so if I'm not going to get labeled a bandit, why not be the immortal zombie god of the shoreline? I'll loot a cleric skin or something, make it religious. Maybe I'll spout prophecy while I'm picking off people as I fancy, using zombies as my weapons, eternally being reborn. Sounds like realistic emotion and immersion right there.

[/quote']

Firstly, your statements are always very vague, as you lack the ability to make any real point clearly or concisely.

You are harping on about the "Realism" issue, stating that a game can only be so realistic. Yet you are clearly in the corner of something which is as unrealistic as your zombie cleric god guy idea.

Magically changing a player skin is no less stupid a concept, than wearing a Bishops robes with the notion of controlling zombie hordes. There are certain things that are needed in order for the game to function. Things like respawns etc, however magically changing player skins dont come into that category. As they are only required for people who need their hands held as they move from one end of the coastline to the other.

Good players dont need skins to simplify everything for them, bad ones do.

You lost this argument to me, others and most importantly, the devs quite a while ago now. Youve not been keeping an eye on this thread obviously as your shallow point has been answered on numerous occasions.

[Njordin 0]

No bandit skin, but some kind of penality for low humanity. The game will get more immersion if everbody doesn´t kill others on sight just because all have a human-phobia.

[The Killing Joke 43]

No bandit skin' date=' but some kind of penality for low humanity.[/quote']

I disagree with this, unless you're going to give a penalty for getting shot so much. Low humanity numbers could/would be a result of having less resistance to killing, which would mean steadier aim, better breathing control, etc. etc.

Those who are worried about shooting others, or choose not to, could have their aim wavering as a penalty to their (in)action.

TKJ

[Swinny (DayZ) 0]

@Nitrous

While im cool with any experimentation Rocket implements (hell its an experiment why not)

"Good players dont need skins to simplify everything for them, bad ones do."

I can probably safely assume your a bandit.

Taking the easy option to shoot first does not make you a good player. you dont use 'skins' to simplify for you because you dont need any. youve done it for yourself 'every moving object is a target'

makes it pretty damn simple.

in many cases it makes you the dick that just ruined some dudes 14 hours worth of scavenging.

I digress.. it does make the game fucking tense and awesome when you can get vengeance.

The case im making is that "Good players dont need skins to simplify everything for them, bad ones do." is a grossly simplified concept in itself and really when it comes to making desicions that little bit easier, you bandits have it made. stop thinking your high and mighty because you would rather play this game as if it was a straight up deathmatch.

A maximum bandit count and also bandit/survivor only channels would just be the best. even though theres lot of places for explotation with that systen. at least its better than global.

hmm back on topic.

Chosing the easy option of 'kill em all' is IMHO a shallow way to play this game and while purely for the LULZ in most cases. i believe that a max bandit limit and a way to link up with *real* survivors in a way that isnt immersion breaking would really create alot more fun moments in the game than anticipation followed by (pvp provoked) dissapointment.

my 2c

awaiting flaming care-bear esque response in 3. 2. 1.

[vredg 0]

I believe that humanity should influence game play in *some way* (not necessary in a clear negative way). I think that most players do. And it seems that Rocket also has some goal with it for the future: "Humanity will be retained for an undisclosed purpose."

I'm not that upset with removing the bandit skin anymore actually :) Now I'm more curious what consequences humanity will have when (if) those are implemented..

[Swinny (DayZ) 0]

"unless you're going to give a penalty for getting shot so much."

hmm yes because scores of new players deserve to be instantly pummeled on the coast on spawn by camping douche bags and then ridiculed online for asking why or wondering what happened.

Pretty sickening. doesnt happen to me I realised rather quickly its a bloody death trap out there.

and not that I am trying to change the status quo but again calling players unskilled because they believe in cooperation over shoot first tactics or simply get caught in their first ten seconds still at spawn is a fucking lame way to go.

It takes more balls to try and live off the land, scavenge what you can and vow to NOT take the shot ans to really enjoy this games mechanics *i feel some "THOSE ARE THE MECHANICS NOOB* retorts brewing* I mean the cooperative man against zombie tactics.

[reuter 120]

I disagree with this' date=' unless you're going to give a penalty for getting shot so much. Low humanity numbers could/would be a result of having less resistance to killing, which would mean steadier aim, better breathing control, etc. etc.

Those who are worried about shooting others, or choose not to, could have their aim wavering as a penalty to their (in)action.

TKJ

[/quote']

Pardon me, but i would really like to know whether your actual character is a bandit or a survivor.

[Mutonizer 78]

The case im making is that "Good players dont need skins to simplify everything for them, bad ones do." is a grossly simplified concept in itself and really when it comes to making desicions that little bit easier, you bandits have it made. stop thinking your high and mighty because you would rather play this game as if it was a straight up deathmatch.

Quite agree. Hardcore and good players are not full blown bandits with minus thousands humanity and counting, these guys are just easy mode players, point and shoot whatever moves.

My shit would be a lot easier if I just shot everyone I meet, no question asked. But I don't because that's boring and to me removes 75% of the game: human interaction with people you meet up on the road.

Funnily enough that's also why I'm glad Rocket's removing bandit skin since to me, that was back to easy mode: bandit, point and shoot...*yawn*

[Dhal (DayZ) 3]

"there needs to be SOME KIND of punishment for people going the easy way of banditry."

Er.. why? Why should there be an artificial penalty on bandits? It's not the wrong way to play' date=' broski.

[/quote']

Arma adopts a realistic weapon damage, adds this to the fact that most of the servers are laggy, and you'll end to die without having any reaction time at all. You also lack in other environmental feel, so the player that have the intention to fire at you is far more advantaged than the pacific one, and since this is a videogame, usually 99% of players takes the "uber" root (you have plenty of examples with FPS's and unbalanced/too-powerful wepons). So in a week you'll only end with a single type of players: those ones that will shot at you on sigh, because it's simple.

In real life, it's tons different: you don't shoot at someone (even if being involved into a situation like this) just because "it's simple", or because you're bored, or because you're a noob. In real life you have ONE SINGLE LIFE .. and that's the key of everything. In this game you only going to loose your loot, but you have INFINITE lifes. So the reason "..because of real life.." to justify any game decision, is invalid from the start.

But that's not really a valid argument for this specific game, at all in just about every point you try to make.

Yes, Arma 2 is aiming at "realistic", they call it a "war simulator". That's something that wouldn't attract me to a generic FPS for the last 10 years. I don't care about realistic when I'm playing a video game, it's either fun or it's not fun. I agree with you there.

The lag is always a factor in an FPS and a huge hurdle. Maybe it's just the Arma 2 engine; but Arma 3 is coming soon advertising all mods will be able to be crossed over without issue. Lag is something that in alpha's isn't much of the priority. Priority is as you play the game, does the game have potential to be great? Are you reporting more mechanical bugs, than posting gripes you have with the way people within the game conduct their business and politics? Is there something that can be added to enhance the "fun" of the game?

The dev decided he wanted a world overrun with zombies to be as harsh as it possibly could, adding human elements to the game of co-op vs. co-op; or being the solo exceptional. This game is what it is. There is no contested areas, there are no safe zones. It is always you vs. someone. You don't have a choice and there is no mechanical protection. The only option is for players to police other players - it just adds another dimension to the game to embrace.

This I believe is why he chose such a brutal engine to host the mod. One shot to the dome from any gun is game over, with the exception of allowing players to wear what they choose. Does this mean killing ex-military nerds, now zombies wearing kevlar/helmets gives you another shot to the head before you're done? Maybe.

Some of you guys are acting like taking away the bandit skin is going to make the game more linear. All it does is add more variables to the equation. As many variables and things to do in a game as possible should be every players motivation to continue playing, especially when the game you're playing is persistent. Otherwise, what's the end game, how viable is it that it has any longevity?

It seems to be really common (especially for ex-military nerds) to throw around the "CoD-bomb" like it's some genius troll. All it does is make you look silly and rules out your opinion immediately, when making such gross generalizations.

This game has full loot and is persistent with real estate. This will attract a totally different niche of gamers that you may have never encountered before. Guys who have been playing these sort of games for over a decade, some a decade and a half. Whether they're outstanding at FPS or not, these are guys who cohesive to the core. Knowing how to communicate, and knowing tricks of the trade to accomplish a goal they've created and execute it with complete predictability.

The complaint seems to be that bandits are taking the easy street by killing other players who have worked hard to get what they have. The devils advocate to that is, it's hard work to live in between survivors and continue acquiring beans without attracting the attention of the entire server (which I can assure you is a much more difficult task than killing buggy zombies).

A few dimensions freedom of clothing can introduce;

• Clans being able to identify each other by having a 'uniform'
  
• Clans being able to be infiltrated in the fray by someone wearing their 'uniform'
  
• Just like discovering new and better guns than you had, more protection via kevlar/helmets etc.
  
• Having to be wary of people you don't know fighting close and jacking the contents of your Alice Pack unawares
  
• Mercenary (NPK) clans offering protection which gives them intel vs. 'bandits'
  
• Fake NPKs collecting intel of surrounding hidden survivor locations
  
• Less inventory space if you want to carry a couple different types of camo, or have civilian and clan duds you can toggle between for different situations
  
• Wedding dresses so we can get in-game married
  
• Possibility of capes
  

That's just to name a few I can think of off the top of my head. None of which are any more unfair in a simulator. It doesn't even take into account that on a realism aspect, there are certain mechanics that cannot be implemented into the game that a RL situation may present. Like killing ex-military nerds and taking their clothes, and posing as a surviving branch of government who will be offering assistance and bringing in troops to your groups location, finding out where you're getting your supplies before ending all of your lives; in a post apocalyptic environment. Everyone knows government isn't a mechanic in the game, there is no way to pull something like that off. There's no real stress about that.

It seems everyone complaining about not being able to visually distinguish a bandit from a survivor is much more lazy than the "CoD kids" they seem to lump bandits in with. You just don't want to have to deal with more variables. You only see this as a straight forward "video game" than a match of chess, trying to outwit your opponent to overcome them. Your gun is just a tool, it doesn't give you the right to live.

You don't seem to understand much about the psychology of what attracts people to games that require team work, much less the intent behind what makes a bandit, a bandit. A well equipped bandit who enjoys his reputation doesn't look at it as "limitless lives". If he's anything to worry about, it will take infinite patience and planning, to re-acquire those items and position. To do that and still maintain his reputation for living long periods of time, executing targets consistently, making life worrisome for those around him is an entirely different world than "Are you friendly?" "Yes, I'm friendly".

If your assessment is those who kill other players with starter items, to graduate to better items through killing other players; I ask you what really is the difference between that and the "friendly" who joins you in a spot you've been holding trying to get to the FEMA tents and fires off an enfield at a zombie that wasn't even aggro? Or goes full sprint through a large city? Or bumps you off a roof? Or any of the other countless endeavors a 'survivor' can grief you with? Maybe you killing that guy is doing all of the survivors in the area a favor, but maybe they wouldn't ask the background story before seeing bandit garb and blasting you in the face from a treeline.

[BubbaWilkins 0]

The reason the skin change was important was that it added a tangible penalty for being an asshole.

Call it karma, reputation, word of mouth, whatever. Like the old west, everyone had heard of Billy the Kid, Jesse James, etc. To take it a step farther, many were known by signature style of dress (boots, hats, belts, guns, etc) so even if you had not met them, you might recognize who the were.

I for one would take it a step further and add a third skin that would require you to keep your humanity and kill bandits. Call it a ranger or a lawman and give them an overcoat and a star or something.

As it is, removing the one tangible penalty is just going to result in less cooperation between people who don't know each other. Some will still take the highroad, but far more are going to just kill on sight since they won't be marked for death. If anything, it is less realistic now since everyone will look like a clone of eachother.

[grezvany13 56]

In real life, even after a zombie outbreak, people who have a bad name (like bandits) will recieve a bounty on their head. The fact that they can't show themselfs at public places or among non-outlaws is a huge penalty besides the bounty hunters who will do anything to hunt them down and claim the bounty.

Since DayZ doesn't have a currency system or other simple ways to pay for a bounty, except by other real players, and we don't want to stick a red flare at a bandits behind so everyone can see him/her at any time, I suggest the following:

- a simple radio can be found at regular loot areas (eg with 5% change)

- this radio will transmit coordinates about known bandits (hum. -1000 or lower) to anyone with a radio

- if you kill a known bandit AND have a radio; you (and only you) will recieve coordinates of a secret stash

- this secret stash is public (so everyone can find it, but it's hard), is server bound and will disappear after 2 days

- at this stash some special loot can be found (eg militairy grade weapon + ammo) based on the total negative humanity of the killed bandit

This solution is simple (except for programming though), will create bounty hunter squads and gives a nice extra to the "good" guys.

And instead of giving bandits a penalty, you'll give the survivors a bonus.

just my 2 cents though... ;)

[The Killing Joke 43]

hmm yes because scores of new players deserve to be instantly pummeled on the coast on spawn by camping douche bags and then ridiculed online for asking why or wondering what happened.

Pretty sickening. doesnt happen to me I realised rather quickly its a bloody death trap out there.

and not that I am trying to change the status quo but again calling players unskilled because they believe in cooperation over shoot first tactics or simply get caught in their first ten seconds still at spawn is a fucking lame way to go.

It takes more balls to try and live off the land' date=' scavenge what you can and vow to NOT take the shot ans to really enjoy this games mechanics *i feel some "THOSE ARE THE MECHANICS NOOB* retorts brewing* I mean the cooperative man against zombie tactics.

[/quote']

You sound very angry. Try some breathing exercises.

Your responses seem silly to me, as I don't believe I called anyone 'unskilled', so I'm not exactly certain why you think you're calling me out on that.

I certainly won't ever favour a system that belittles or nerfs ANY player due to their ability/inability. I agree that yes, it is not fair that people spawn camp. I don't think anybody is arguing against that. The humanity system is flawed, in my opinion, and has way too much weight in conversation. Anyone suggesting that people who shoot people should be - in any way - reduced in their abilities, is unfair.

Your statement that it takes 'more balls not to shoot' is ridiculous at best. If you have any thoughts about backing that up to make it more understandable, I would welcome it.

TKJ

[matteharenaegis 0]

In real life' date=' even after a zombie outbreak, people who have a bad name (like bandits) will recieve a bounty on their head. The fact that they can't show themselfs at public places or among non-outlaws is a huge penalty besides the bounty hunters who will do anything to hunt them down and claim the bounty.

Since DayZ doesn't have a currency system or other simple ways to pay for a bounty, except by other real players, and we don't want to stick a red flare at a bandits behind so everyone can see him/her at any time, I suggest the following:

- a simple radio can be found at regular loot areas (eg with 5% change)

- this radio will transmit coordinates about known bandits (hum. -1000 or lower) to anyone with a radio

- if you kill a known bandit AND have a radio; you (and only you) will recieve coordinates of a secret stash

- this secret stash is public (so everyone can find it, but it's hard), is server bound and will disappear after 2 days

- at this stash some special loot can be found (eg militairy grade weapon + ammo) based on the total negative humanity of the killed bandit

This solution is simple (except for programming though), will create bounty hunter squads and gives a nice extra to the "good" guys.

And instead of giving bandits a penalty, you'll give the survivors a bonus.

just my 2 cents though... ;)

[/quote']

I'm sorry, exactly how does this not penalize bandits if the game broadcasts their location? And just because someone is a bandit or a survivor does not mean at all that they're good or bad.

What if a survivor starts shooting at you but you manage to kill him instead and now you're a bandit? Are you going to feel good knowing that your location is being broadcasted because you're a "bad guy"? No, you won't and this suggestion is bad.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Pardon me' date=' but i would really like to know whether your actual character is a bandit or a survivor.[/quote']

I presently wear a bandit skin, and am looking forward to the day when I do not. I earned it by shooting a couple of guys being chased by zeds, because they had some nice stuff. One, a rifle with no bullets, and one, LOADED with an ALICE pack and lots of stuff.

Being new, I was chewed on by zeds, had the ALICE stolen when I accidentally dropped it (trying to get it off the dead guy) and then I was shot in the back of the head. Someone got a lot of nice stuff.

It was a lot of stuff, earned quickly, and lost almost as quickly. This ... is an awesome game, and not one that's meant to last a long time. (You should NOT be able to keep your stuff for a long time.)

The reason the skin change was important was that it added a tangible penalty for being an asshole.

You sound angry too.

Call it karma' date=' reputation, word of mouth, whatever. Like the old west, everyone had heard of Billy the Kid, Jesse James, etc. To take it a step farther, many were known by signature style of dress (boots, hats, belts, guns, etc) so even if you had not met them, you might recognize who the were.[/quote']

I recommended somewhere a few pages back, to have a 'phantom npc' scrawl the name of the bad guy on a barn in blood - it's aesthetic, would accomplish what you're looking for, and would not break immersion as your idea does. (Now, if you had said, "use a CB radio with limited transmission distance to name and shame", then you're thinking!)

I for one would take it a step further and add a third skin that would require you to keep your humanity and kill bandits. Call it a ranger or a lawman and give them an overcoat and a star or something.

That only makes a new target' date=' unless you're making it a choice to do so. You think Bandits are getting shot on sight? Just wait until you waltz into town wearing that shiny star.

As it is, removing the one tangible penalty is just going to result in less cooperation between people who don't know each other. Some will still take the highroad, but far more are going to just kill on sight since they won't be marked for death. If anything, it is less realistic now since everyone will look like a clone of eachother.

Again, blanket statements you can't back up. Nobody can. Please stop using them.

TKJ

[Nitrous (DayZ) 0]

@Nitrous

While im cool with any experimentation Rocket implements (hell its an experiment why not)

"Good players dont need skins to simplify everything for them' date=' bad ones do."

I can probably safely assume your a bandit.

Taking the easy option to shoot first does not make you a good player. you dont use 'skins' to simplify for you because you dont need any. youve done it for yourself 'every moving object is a target'

makes it pretty damn simple.

in many cases it makes you the dick that just ruined some dudes 14 hours worth of scavenging.

I digress.. it does make the game fucking tense and awesome when you can get vengeance.

The case im making is that "Good players dont need skins to simplify everything for them, bad ones do." is a grossly simplified concept in itself and really when it comes to making desicions that little bit easier, you bandits have it made. stop thinking your high and mighty because you would rather play this game as if it was a straight up deathmatch.

A maximum bandit count and also bandit/survivor only channels would just be the best. even though theres lot of places for explotation with that systen. at least its better than global.

hmm back on topic.

Chosing the easy option of 'kill em all' is IMHO a shallow way to play this game and while purely for the LULZ in most cases. i believe that a max bandit limit and a way to link up with *real* survivors in a way that isnt immersion breaking would really create alot more fun moments in the game than anticipation followed by (pvp provoked) dissapointment.

my 2c

awaiting flaming care-bear esque response in 3. 2. 1.

[/quote']

I could flame the crap out of you but I wont.

You assume wrongly that I'm a "Bandit" per say. I am currently at -500 humanity due to killing a "Survivor" who killed a friend of mine last night (To his credit, he came back an hour later for some vengeance, but died again). I don't just run around killing for the sake of it, but when you are wearing a bandit skin, a lot of people dont really give you a choice.

"In many cases it makes you the dick that just ruined some dudes 14 hours worth of scavenging" - Now that is a pure PvE mindset, but unfortunately this isnt a PvE environment. If someone is stupid enough to run around holding a flare I have little sympathy for them if they get shot, and not necessarily by me. Unfortunately there is a lot of stupid people playing this mod and you will see them again an hour later, carrying another flare as they run through Elektro. The intelligent players think "Hmm maybe that wasnt such a good idea, I'll try something different" and thats where my "Good players dont need skins" comment come into play.

Sensible players will learn from their mistakes, they will adapt to their environment and they will become good players because of that. It's the ones who dont learn from those mistakes that whine on here about skins etc. Your mentioning of channels is a good point too, I can't help but laugh when people say "Ohh theres a bandit in the church, should we kill him?", then 5 minutes later theyre saying "Ok, open the door and ill cover you in 3...2...1". I have sat there scratching my head at such stupidity, wondering how the hell these people even know how to boot up a PC, nevermind install the DayZ mod itself.

Being a bandit is also not as easy as youre making out. You have an increased number of targets yes, but you also become a bigger target. Everyone wants to kill you, so avoiding towns and cities during daytime is almost a pre-requisite, and thats a bitch when youre in need of food and water. Add to that the fact that survivors move in larger groups (In general). I've spent adequate time on both sides of the fence and I know what its like for both parties. Its no easier for bandits, that is myth.

Humanity based skins make the mod far too "Black & White" imho and as I'm sure you know, life is in a shade of Grey more often then not. Maybe my Good/Bad comment was a bit "Black & white", but I've tried to explain myself a bit to you.

[Kolchak (DayZ) 5]

Firstly' date=' your statements are always very vague, as you lack the ability to make any real point clearly or concisely.

You are harping on about the "Realism" issue, stating that a game can only be so realistic. Yet you are clearly in the corner of something which is as unrealistic as your zombie cleric god guy idea.

Magically changing a player skin is no less stupid a concept, than wearing a Bishops robes with the notion of controlling zombie hordes. There are certain things that are needed in order for the game to function. Things like respawns etc, however magically changing player skins dont come into that category. As they are only required for people who need their hands held as they move from one end of the coastline to the other.

Good players dont need skins to simplify everything for them, bad ones do.

You lost this argument to me, others and most importantly, the devs quite a while ago now. Youve not been keeping an eye on this thread obviously as your shallow point has been answered on numerous occasions.

[/quote']

Wow, you must be new to the internet. Little tip, when you have to tell someone you won the argument, you're as far from "winning" as you can get. Besides, you're under the mistaken idea that this is an argument. I never said don't take out the skins, never said PVP sucks, or anything like that, I simply stated some facts, which you apparently took offense to. When you attacked my stance on the issue I posed questions you were unable to refute or answer.

The sheer fact that no one is protesting and petitioning for the numerous other unrealistic things in the game to be changed means it's hollow rhetoric. Doesn't matter what they say, their actions have shown they don't really care that these things are unrealistic, they want this single thing to change and are using it's lack of realism as a bullet point.

My original point is that the devs put bandit skins in for their own reasons, they're taking it out for yours. The original intent was pretty obviously to give killing other players some kind of weight and meaning on those who do the killing. Taking it out only serves those who want killing other players to mean nothing to them. They're caving to the will of only their most vocal players, not doing things of their own accord, and that is my problem with it. This is just the beginning. Now that bandit players have gotten their way they know all it takes is enough people yelling loud enough to make the devs cave in on the next thing they want. It only gets messier from here. Forums should never be the places you take design direction from, they should be little more than a window into a few of your player's mindset.

[WalkerDown (DayZ) 296]

Those defending the skin removal will be the first to moan when everyone will be forced to turns into a "bandit" and there will be more role playing at all. Even if they are bandits right now, since because it will be no different than any other FPS out there.

I hope they'll introduce some other method to identify a type of player or it will be a frag-fest.

[Pharmakon 8]

The idea that removing bandit morphing will contribute to realism is preposterous.

The core lack of realism in this game stems from the fact that it is set over multiple servers, and that its players do not play 24-7: people can disappear and reappear in an alternate reality that is identical, but populated by different people: these "metaphysics" annihilate any chance for “realistic” interpersonal identity references.

The fact that this game is set over multiple servers eliminates GEOGRAPHY: in the real world, geography is what allows us to think of each others personal identities despite the fact that it contains 6 billions holders of multiple intersecting identities. The proximity among us allows us to know who is more important to us, and the distance between us is a necessary limit on the amount of people that we have to care about : but in DayZ, I could spawn next to ANY of the 75000 players, and I cannot possibly remember the word-of mouth reputation (an institutionalised reputation system could easily be abused), as well as the physical appearance of so many people. If DayZ was realistic, no doubt the murderers would be geographically ostracised, and would eventually form a discernible culture (or discernible lack thereof). But because players TRANSCEND geography, identity must also be TRANSCENDENTAL, through a system of morality.

This game is lauded by PCGamer and RockPaperShotgun for its player-driven STORIES : a game that makes for good stories is a game with variables (Dwarf Fortress is the best example of this), and although a binary form of identification is sub-par, removing bandit morphing removes the only in-game variable of identity, it turns tentative interpersonal relations into an unknowable: decisions will initially be based on impulse or a purely mathematical calculation of gain and risk: eventually these mentalities will turn the game into a free-for-all deathmatch as people would realise there is no reason not to be a solo-killer: in fact, there wouldn't be any reason why new players WOULDN'T think the game is intended to be a deathmatch.

The bandit skin (and video game morality systems in general) is arbitrary, but it is a necessary SIGNIFIER. Analogy: language's root words are inevitably arbitrary, and they are imposed with authority: yet without these imposed signifiers, our capacity to communicate and appreciate the objects of our decisions is severely hindered, so we are most assuredly not free. The alternative to geography relations or relations based on criteria imposed by authority is the network-based relation, which takes shape outside the game through voice chats, forums or circles of friends. I do not think the game should depend on external applications to be worthwhile: to compensate for this imbalance, the developers main focus should be on creating variables within the game that allow interpersonal relations to flourish: this is the task of anyone developing a player-driven game.

PROPOSAL:

Bandit-morphing is far from perfect, but it is not at all as broken as Rocket says it is (I wonder if he'll remove “bandits killed” and “Step 2: kill bandits” from the front page). It is definitely better than nothing, but it absolutely needs to stay until he can come up with a better idea: the people who complain about it most are the ones who don't have the patience to wait for their humanity to recover (if you've only killed one person it is fairly quick): instead of laying low they place themselves in situations where they may have to kill others to survive. If it's kill or be killed for the bandit-skinned right now, it'll be kill or be killed for everybody if we remove bandit-morphing.

The main complaint is that you shouldn't lose humanity when defending yourself, whether you are a repentant bandit or a survivor defending one's self from an upstart bandit. But for the game to know whether you are defending yourself, it would be necessary for it to be able to know who shot first. However, bandits could overcome this by trying to kill survivors who are firing at zombies, so the game would have to know not only who shot first, but also towards WHO the players are shooting: this seems like a complicated thing for the servers to keep track of, but when you play against AI, the NPCs know when they are getting shot at, so the code to make the game know who is shooting at who already exists, it just has to be applied to players.

If that is not possible, I think the only solution would be to have multiple skins to create a broader spectrum of trust-related identities:

-Bandits could choose to repent, this would give them a different skin (until they become survivors again): anyone who kills a repentant bandit would lose a little bit of humanity (maybe 800 or so). Repentant bandits who are killed by a survivor regain their humanity upon re-spawn. Repentant bandits who do not hold their promise and shoot a survivor anyway would get a massive dip in humanity, accompanied by an even darker, uglier bandit skin.

These solutions sound like they could work, there is probably some loophole I haven't thought of though. What do you think, guys?

[The Killing Joke 43]

Those defending the skin removal will be the first to moan when everyone will be forced to turns into a "bandit" and there will be more role playing at all.

Blanket statement. You can't prove this.

Even if they are bandits right now' date=' since because it will be no different than any other FPS out there.[/quote']

Except that it has worse AI, choppy graphics and ... oh wait, you were being serious.

I hope they'll introduce some other method to identify a type of player or it will be a frag-fest.

I don't, because you shouldn't automagically know if someone is good or bad.

TKJ

[CarrierMobility 5]

This (removing the bandit skin) is 100% the wrong direction. The balance between survivor and bandit is extremely tenuous at the moment, but there is some semblance of balance.

The end result of removing the bandit skin will be to allow bandits to kill with impunity.

It will also be the case that survivors will not hesitate to fire on unknown parties.

Rocket - you state that you don't want to impose rules/order on this game. That's a noble ideal, to create something where the players define the rules. BUT, you must realize, that this is exactly that - and IDEAL. By your very nature as the game developer, you DO serve a vital role in preserving the playability and balance of the game. NOT telling players HOW to play, but providing an environment in which they can feasibly choose to play how they wish. If you move forward with removing the bandit skins, you are tilting the balance of power in favor of bandits, and in favor of those who shoot first.

With great power comes great responsibility... Such is the burden of being a god.

It's not worth it, man. Not if all we gain out of it is a custom skin for bling purposes.

[dope25 1]

Why are you people even arguing with each-other in a topic where a decision has already been made?

[The Killing Joke 43]

Oh, the (lack of) humanity!

To everybody who says those who 'shoot first' have an advantage, you are right. Why? Because they are going to live longer. I'll agree with you on that point.

BUT

You have absolutely no justification to say that, by killing other players, you have the right to assign them a different skin, arbitrarily. And to the guy who said, we need to "providing an environment in which they can feasibly choose to play how they wish" he's right. But assigning a skin, REMOVES that ability, because it leverages an assumption upon you BY SIGHT.

Sorry, everybody. NOBODY should be MARGINALIZED for only the COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN.

TKJ