Bandit/Survivor Morphing to be removed

[WalkerDown (DayZ) 296]

I do think this will make meeting other players more tense...

Yup so tense: first to spot > first to fire > win; other > die.

It's so tense that i were doing this in Quake Arena.

[spitfir3tornado 11]

Oh' date=' 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

[/quote']

They're not ostracized because of their "skin", but because of their actions. You don't fear a convict for he's clothes, presence beside you, the color of he's RL skin, but for he's past actions.

For me, being a long wolf, it will mean "shot-on sight" if a character approaches. I don't want to loose the loot just for some random guy. Staying in a group isn't that great as it would seem. If one screws up, it has to run away from the "zombi zone" and deal with them alone or else, in a city, all those walkers would chase the whole team. Lots of bullets wasted "for nothing".

Moreover, a well hidden/camped person, could probably take out three or four people before they would have the possibility to take cover.

The last aspect, but not the least, only the surviving thing isn't enough for the long run. To be honest, there isn't a Stalker like story or whatever kind for that matter, and without that, a good gun and supplies would last quite while in the forest or the country side. Real life or game life survival checked and logged out. :D

Considering the later, the game absolutely needs to give a motivation to players NOT to kill each other and a way to deal with the "renegades". Teaming up with friends or known players is an idea, a very good one for "a real life experience", but not such a great one for the over all game as it is now.

In the end, the moder said something about the "humanity" being a variable in a later stage of production, who knows, maybe he has a solution for all of this.

No, you're ostracized for your skin. You have that skin because of your actions, but if you killed someone, it's not like someone else can just look at you and say "You've killed someone."

---

I don't like the idea of the bandit skin removal at all. there should be penalties for those who choose to kill and lost their humanity. I also think that there should be some system to regain humanity for the reason of regaining it for ability to be able to defend yourself and kill in self defense. not just for stuff.

This is a game (and mod) about killing things. You shouldn't be penalized for killing things.

[ouberlord 4]

Erm, maybe I'm missing something here, but don't you also get humanity back (up to 2500) simply by playing the game? The wiki says 1800 per hour (at a rate of 150 per 5 minutes) which is too high, but a friend of mine killed in self defense and he was already back up to 2500 after a few more hours of play. Not to mention, whats stopping a pair of bandits from going to a hospital and using the blood packs on each other to more quickly boost their humanity? I mean, shoot them in the leg, bandage them, tranfuse them, repeat until supplies are gone.

It's pretty easy to tell who the deathmatch players are; they're the ones by Cherno/Elektro on top of the buildings or in other high population/traffic areas. Most people are more worried about the random stranger they meet inland, who acts nice first then shoots them in the back later.

My point is that people should have *been* worried about this. The bandit skin only marked those who routinely killed survivors and did not care if they were a bandit; not the truly sociopathic ones who could easily kill a person and then become a survivor again to keep up the ruse.

[CarrierMobility 5]

My point is that people should have *been* worried about this. The bandit skin only marked those who routinely killed survivors and did not care if they were a bandit; not the truly sociopathic ones who could easily kill a person and then become a survivor again to keep up the ruse.

... What?

[The Killing Joke 43]

The fact that you've set your stance in stone doesn't really make for good debating: you're opposed to any sort of programmed consequences because it would simply "not be fair" for the game to take into account your actions' date=' you even compare this to racism.[/quote']

I don't have any problem with the game taking into account a player's actions, but if the consequences are out-of-touch or give imbalance to a player for that reason, I don't see a reason to have it in DayZ. I also fight for the rights of the "good guy" players who are begging to have a "White Knight" skin assigned to them for being ultra-super-wonderful, because they do not realize that it paints a giant target on them.

Don't take my 'stance set in stone' as a bad thing. I fight for the User! /Tron

This seems a bit too inflexible' date=' so I feel compelled to ask you: would you keep this stance even if, after bandit morphing is gone, the game becomes markedly less enjoyable for others, because the equilibrium between players who reach out to others, who distrust strangers, and who kill all others is wiped away?[/quote']

That's a big 'if', but my stance would stay, because it undoubtedly protects both sides. Right now, bandit morphing is unfair, and is hugely (HUGELY) swayed in favour of the survivor side.

They can make a judgement call and say, "yes, this person is evil, and his skin gives me a reason to shoot him dead." Sadly, to their chagrin, they will themselves turn this way after a number of kills, because as far as I am aware, unless "Han Shoots First", you lose humanity. Simply taking it to the bandits is not a solution. (Yes, in my analogy, the survivors are Greedo. Ha ha.)

Not everybody is having fun when the playing field isn't level.

TKJ

[synesthesia 4]

Eloquent Stuff

This guy is on the right track, i think. The best zombie themes are not about the zombies, but about the people. This is big, and is working amazingly well in this game. Getting into an infested town is tense, but spotting a survivor or bandit approaching a town when you are inland makes my heart skip a beat every time.

Ill go back to what i said earlier, the skin is not perfect, with the shoot on sight stuff, but, something needs to represent at least a bit of the inclinations of the character. Bloody hands maybe? Harder to notice, still works inside the limitations of the arma 2 engine. We can read body language, thats why when youre about to get mugged you usually kind of see it coming, etc. etc. The arma engine cannot simulate this. The skin helps with this, but it is a bit of an overkill. In any case, i agree with rocket that now is the time to go nuts and try stuff.

BTW, love the cough idea. Give us some sneezes too! And let the aim shake when it happens! Man, sneezing in a bad position would be amazing. Reminds me of that great bit in MGS.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Ill go back to what i said earlier' date=' the skin is not perfect, with the shoot on sight stuff, but, something needs to represent at least a bit of the inclinations of the character. Bloody hands maybe?[/quote']

Answer me this: If you are giving those who choose to shoot others this limitation - this immediate, and recognizable handicap - what are you giving the survivors? Where is the balance?

TK "I fight for the User!" J

[Deveren 0]

Ill go back to what i said earlier' date=' the skin is not perfect, with the shoot on sight stuff, but, something needs to represent at least a bit of the inclinations of the character. Bloody hands maybe?[/quote']

Answer me this: If you are giving those who choose to shoot others this limitation - this immediate, and recognizable handicap - what are you giving the survivors? Where is the balance?

TK "I fight for the User!" J

Wouldn't that be considered balance? Them not having any recognizable feat, I'd argue, doesn't make the field even, but gives them the advantage. They get to blend in with everyone else and no longer have any real consequence for their actions. One could argue that the advantage of the bandit was always the ability to shoot first. The most people can do now is try to name them, but even that can be incredibly hard.

[zitrone 0]

SO WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET IT?

[ouberlord 4]

My point is that people should have *been* worried about this. The bandit skin only marked those who routinely killed survivors and did not care if they were a bandit; not the truly sociopathic ones who could easily kill a person and then become a survivor again to keep up the ruse.

... What?

Er, what part was confusing? My point was that bandits could pretty easily become survivors again.

[ParaB 114]

I'm really not happy with the removal of bandit skins and I think it will hurt the game. No, it's not a perfect system. Far from it. But it was way better then what we get now. I do understand that the bandits rejoice about this change since it removes their major handicap, but I think there should be consequences for a player's actions in DayZ. Murderers will now enjoy complete anonymity in DayZ, something I believe is wrong. I play 2/3+ of my time in a group, we will most probably start shooting anyone on sight.

I fear that this change will fundamentally change DayZ for the worse.

[Lupo 0]

I like the idea of this change, it will allow for more investment into your character and force you to think a lot more on whether or not you can trust other people. Honestly the idea of being able to make such a drastic decision to trust someone simply due to the clothing they are wearing is boring and like many have said takes a lot of the tension out of the game.

I personally before making contact with someone will stalk them and watch how they play and what they do. I really only do this to determine if they worth grouping up with because if they get caught by a group of zombies easily they most likely aren't someone I would care to work with and if by chance they encounter another survivor I can make a better decision as to whether or not they are trust worthy.

In the end adding this new system to replace humanity will only add more depth to the game and increase its realism factor which is why so many of us have come to play. The game isn't solely about massing a huge amount of resources with your survivor buddies. (who you seemingly just met and instantly trusted due to their skin) This isn't farmville or some other facebook game where all you do is add a hundred friends so they can help you make your farm bigger and better.

The game is about survival and in a true and realistic situation you wouldn't likely trust other people unless you knew them or perhaps they did something to earn your trust in the mere moments you met them ex. saving your life from a horde of zombies, giving you some anti-biotics etc.

Now as for the carebears crying that everyone will become a CoD player and shoot everyone on site well guess what, all the CoD players already do that and most of them don't even make it off the coast. That alone should show you how successful they've been at the game. Eventually most CoD players will move on and grow bored with this mod but for the time being just bear with it. Also for all the carebears saying "This isn't REAL LIFE HERP DERP" Why are you playing this game then, the whole point of this mod is for its realism factor. If you want to play a only PVE game then go play Left 4 Dead.

[vedicardi 7]

well in real life there are many more things you would be able to use as determining factors. in this game you can't call out to people, you can't just talk to them, or judge based on "appearance," (you know, some homeless people APPEAR homeless!), so there needs to be some sort of indication, or some way to communicate directly at the very least. ie if direct chat wasn't broken, I wouldn't see this as quite as much of a problem.

[ouberlord 4]

there needs to be some sort of indication' date=' or some way to communicate directly at the very least. ie if direct chat wasn't broken, I wouldn't see this as quite as much of a problem.

[/quote']

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[mike10019314@yahoo.ca 3]

the game needs a friend system, say i meet someone and we work together i could add him to my list and we can both see each others name above our heads atleast at closer ranges 50m 80m?

a enemy system could be good as well say someoen kills you you get the option to put them on the list gives them a red name tag or icon above there head 20 to 50m range maybe? so you need to get closer(disapears if they go prone or kneel maybe)

another idea is that anyone your friend gets a green or blue arm band , would be handy for telling a friend at a distance to

[miqueloz 33]

well in real life there are many more things you would be able to use as determining factors. in this game you can't call out to people' date=' you can't just talk to them, or judge based on "appearance," (you know, some homeless people APPEAR homeless!), so there needs to be some sort of indication, or some way to communicate directly at the very least. ie if direct chat wasn't broken, I wouldn't see this as quite as much of a problem.

[/quote']

Homeless people appear homeless because of their smell, rugged appearance and torn clothes because they don't have access to a shower, shaving razors or money for new clothes. How would you tell apart someone who at times snipes another human being from someone who doesn't? You simply can't.

Even if you could call out to other people, how would that help? Someone hunting players could just as easily lie.

[synesthesia 4]

What deveren said. Survivors are usually not hostile, ergo their skins. Bandits do, and that shows some sort of inclination to hostility, or at least some strong paranoia.

What you call a handicap is actually the balance you name once and again, if we dont at least have a reasonable suspicion of who is hostile, hostile units, who shoot first, have a big advantage. Not only that, it opens the abiliy to fake friendlyness, and then shoot in the head mid salute.

Then again, this is the time to test this stuff. Its not that big an issue ATM. Rocket needs to check how it affects the game, and react accordingly.

You will probably dissect my post, adamantly defend the only consequence for (in)humanity in the game, attack it sentence by sentence, and continue to predate the thread. Goodbye!

[Mastariata 0]

This mod is supposed to be a realistic portrayal of a zombie apocalypse and post apocalyptic survival.

If I go outside and shoot someone in the face with an M9, I do not instantly appear in desert camouflage. Those who think this change is for the worse do not understand the premise of this mod, and should go back to playing L4D.

The world in DayZ is supposed to be incredibly dangerous. Stop being so trusting, adapt, be cautious and you will prosper.

[Dhal (DayZ) 3]

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

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.

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.

[/quote']

This doesn't hold up. You're saying bandits should look like bandits because of your own personal reasons, not because the mechanic makes sense.

To use your own arguments; the reason Billy the Kid's etc had the reputation they did, is because you couldn't telegraph a photo across the nation instantaneously. If a bandit in this game is storming a town full of survivors taking things from their packs, and blasting them in the face, the other survivors can see this and act on it if they choose to.

For every Billy the Kid there were 1,000 more unknown train raiders and coach heists that were in it for money not fame, that never were caught. Your personal "he's an asshole" doesn't justify a mechanic for a game that's goal is realism and being very difficult to survive.

[Deveren 0]

This mod is supposed to be a realistic portrayal of a zombie apocalypse and post apocalyptic survival.

If I go outside and shoot someone in the face with an M9' date=' I do not instantly appear in desert camouflage. Those who think this change is for the worse do not understand the premise of this mod, and should go back to playing L4D.

The world in DayZ is supposed to be incredibly dangerous. Stop being so trusting, adapt, be cautious and you will prosper.

[/quote']

I get the idea, but that doesn't mean they can't try and introduce something. Like one of the other people said (granted i don't know how easy it'd be to implement), you could make it so you tag people as friendly or hostile, giving them either a temporary little indicator. Maybe a max of 1-5 days, in which you start to 'forget' their 'defining features'. Maybe in time allow this to be shared between a group of people. In real life, you could make a mental note off a short description of the target who is or has attacked you. In this, there are no defining features. Everyone has the same skin. Least this way we have a way to overcome the games shortcoming. For example, 2 survivors are fighting in a city and one goes behind a building, the other follows and finds 3 more survivors, he can't tell which fired at him and which didn't, unless they all happen to have different variations of the survivor skin, but that's not many and there is a high chance of duplicate colors. This would help bring it more towards the realism people are talking about while not giving a guy a shoot on sight skin.

[miqueloz 33]

Yeah, how would you spread information about a bandit by "word of mouth" if you get ambushed and no one sees it happen?

[Mastariata 0]

I suppose that a way to tag survivors friendly or hostile would be nice. However after character death this should reset (i.e hostile/friendly players don't stay tagged through death) so that it corresponds with the whole "starting from square one" way that this game works.

Although I personally have never had a problem identifying friend from foe. But that's mainly because everyone in game is someone that I don't trust, and I'm always on teamspeak with the groups that I am with.

[sephirotic (DayZ) 1]

This mod is supposed to be a realistic portrayal of a zombie apocalypse and post apocalyptic survival.

If I go outside and shoot someone in the face with an M9' date=' I do not instantly appear in desert camouflage. Those who think this change is for the worse do not understand the premise of this mod, and should go back to playing L4D.

The world in DayZ is supposed to be incredibly dangerous. Stop being so trusting, adapt, be cautious and you will prosper.

[/quote']

I get the idea, but that doesn't mean they can't try and introduce something. Like one of the other people said (granted i don't know how easy it'd be to implement), you could make it so you tag people as friendly or hostile, giving them either a temporary little indicator. Maybe a max of 1-5 days, in which you start to 'forget' their 'defining features'. Maybe in time allow this to be shared between a group of people. In real life, you could make a mental note off a short description of the target who is or has attacked you. In this, there are no defining features. Everyone has the same skin. Least this way we have a way to overcome the games shortcoming. For example, 2 survivors are fighting in a city and one goes behind a building, the other follows and finds 3 more survivors, he can't tell which fired at him and which didn't, unless they all happen to have different variations of the survivor skin, but that's not many and there is a high chance of duplicate colors. This would help bring it more towards the realism people are talking about while not giving a guy a shoot on sight skin.

COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS. neither a completely "anonymous" nor a "marked skin aka: shoot on sight" aproachs are good solutions.

The TAG idea is very good. Something like a "like" and "dislike" reputation, you add by visually seing a target. Problem is, the SPOT function of the backspace was removed, and veteran servers has no subtitle whatsoever if you point your "invisible" cursor over an object or a player. Maybe they should fiix that.

I vote in favor of a tag/ranting system added by the players. They could even be used to foll some groups with false taggins. Who knows?

[Deveren 0]

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

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.

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.

[/quote']

This doesn't hold up. You're saying bandits should look like bandits because of your own personal reasons, not because the mechanic makes sense.

To use your own arguments; the reason Billy the Kid's etc had the reputation they did, is because you couldn't telegraph a photo across the nation instantaneously. If a bandit in this game is storming a town full of survivors taking things from their packs, and blasting them in the face, the other survivors can see this and act on it if they choose to.

For every Billy the Kid there were 1,000 more unknown train raiders and coach heists that were in it for money not fame, that never were caught. Your personal "he's an asshole" doesn't justify a mechanic for a game that's goal is realism and being very difficult to survive.

In a way, they almost couldn't. That 'bandit' would look just like them. They'd have to check in before firing, while the bandit is free to kill/steal everything without worry. It's not realistic because you can't find any distinguishing feature about the person. If everyone in the united states looked the same with 3 or 4 different color variations of the same outfit, billy the kid wouldn't have had any issues. Everyone else would have because they'd be trying to figure out which one actually was billy the kid.

[miqueloz 33]

It's the zombie apocalypse, there are no cameras and no functioning towns. It'd be pretty much impossible for anyone to have much of a reputation because dead people don't talk.