Bandit/Survivor Morphing to be removed

[calin_banc 5]

The "user" was lucky and you up to some extent. :)

[Cromyth 3]

I enjoyed the days before bandit skins. If anything it made people band together a little bit longer and then the shooting would begin. Not everyone would shoot each other on sight. Thats carebear thinking and should be punished by a swift kick in the jimmies. My only concern with the ability to find skins and wear them is that people will kill you for said skins. Like if you manage to find a guille suit make sure no one ever sees you or theyll just kill for the skin unless the skin is permanent once you find it.

[The Killing Joke 43]

The "user" was lucky and you up to some extent. :)

It was a good night. I was totally in the "If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed" mood.

;)

TK "I fight for the User!" J

[Malaclypse 3]

My only concern with the ability to find skins and wear them is that people will kill you for said skins. Like if you manage to find a guille suit make sure no one ever sees you or theyll just kill for the skin unless the skin is permanent once you find it.

No way, when you die you should lose it, whether or not someone else can loot it. I mean, how is this any different than your beans? Or your gun? Or your GPS, backpack, NVGs etc? People will kill you for any of those things too, if that's their wont.

[Scrove 2]

Skins should provide bonuses/negatives towards the temperature gauge rising and falling ;0).

[Budget_Gamer 0]

No way, when you die you should lose it, whether or not someone else can loot it. I mean, how is this any different than your beans? Or your gun? Or your GPS, backpack, NVGs etc? People will kill you for any of those things too, if that's their wont.

A skin shouldnt be "lootable" in my option. Its a visual intensive to kill, especially if the skin is rare. At least with the majority of items players dont know I have them therefore may not risk a fight. Thats how it should be anyway because I will honestly kill people on sight for their skins (if it benefits me) if this is not the case, which I wouldnt do for their gun/backpack.

The bandit system is a great system, it was just implemented wrongly: you shouldnt be branded with a skin if you are a killer, as you wouldnt in real life.

However, the bandit system -should- be implementable by hostile encounters being apparent to you.

To explain this - if a player has shot you and you some how escaped, you should from then on(until that character is dead) know that player was hostile, as would be the case in real life.

This shouldnt be a skin change but possibly if you move over your cursor it would say previously hostile, until you die and then its reset.

I think that would be a much better way to use the bandit system, pleasing the people who want aid on who to trust as well as maintaining realism.

[Malaclypse 3]

Would be rad to add in tranquilizing features, hog-ties, handcuffs. Knock a bandit out, try him for his crimes, hang him etc. Totally a dumb idea, I'm sorry guys, I should go to bed.

[TeaLeaf 5]

I take it 1.5.8 didn't remove the bandits skins? I ran into at least two today.

One was dead and had an M14, a map, a compass, pretty much every item I wanted on him. The other shot me dead when we rounded a corner at the coastal airfield.

[narco_jones 104]

I think the idea of being able to notice someone from a previous encounter is a good one.

It would also be good to be-able to spread this information to other players. Telling a player to be cautious of a specific character or that he is friendly. Maybe this could result in some sort of reputation system spread via word of mouth.

Interesting idea...

[Katana67 2907]

I mean, if I had my way... we'd have configurable player loadouts. Meaning you could change your LBV, headwear, boots, gloves, clothes, etc. All would have effects on how much you could carry, and obviously how you look. So if one wanted to look like a "bandit", one could do that.

But I'm sure there's limits with the engine at how this can be done.

[JeSuisUneSurvivante 1]

What I've played of the new version so far hasn't been promising. Been murdered on the spot by every survivor I've come across.

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.[/quote']

Ok, let's take this one more time...

If you go outside and shoot someone in the face with an M9, then correct: you not instantly appear in camouflage. But here's the really important part: neither do they pop back to life on a nearby beach.

The "herp derp that isn't how it works in real life" argument is completely useless because this is in fact a game, not real life. As such, you just don't get real life behavior from people unless you impose non-RL constraints - because not only do actions have completely different consequences, but what's at stake is completely different.

Have you ever tried playing poker just for fun, without betting anything on it? With nothing on the line, the way people play is completely and utterly unrecognizable to how they play when they've got money to gain and lose from it. There's no incentive not to take crazy risks, so why not do it?

It's the same here.

In real life, the stakes are people's lives, the act of killing someone is rare, and every non-psychopath has massive barriers against doing it. But this is a game, where the stakes are simply your current equipment, the act of killing someone is the click of a mouse button, and "boredom" is enough of a reason to do it. And there's no incentive not to...

Was the bandit skin system perfect? No. But there needs to be some kind of incentive to stop people from just murdering everyone else they meet. For gameplay purposes or to get some kind of semblance of real cooperation/defection behavior, take your pick.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Was the bandit skin system perfect? No. But there needs to be some kind of incentive to stop people from just murdering everyone else they meet. For gameplay purposes or to get some kind of semblance of real cooperation/defection behavior' date=' take your pick.[/quote']

No, and let's play your game and examine the words you choose closely.

"There needs to be some kind of incentive..." should really read "I would like there to be some kind of incentive..." The game doesn't need it, all players don't need it, and it's not even a need. It's a want.

It's ok. You can "want" something. It's good to want something. If we look at the root of it all, if you never get what you want, the game will still work. People can still play the game ("gameplay purposes") and people can still use real co-operation and defection, without it.

Let's call it what it is. It is a want.

[Jorden 63]

-snip-

I have to agree with what he said about the bandit skins. It was a better way to punish players for murdering for "boredom". I'm always fearful of others players and play more of a lone wolf style. Taking this away really hurts my trust with any player honestly and if I feel threatened, I will more than likely stand my ground.

I had a hard enough time trusting people before the change, now I can't trust anyone.

[drewmaw 56]

I think the major problem in terms of why people kill each other is this:

There's no easy way (there's no way atm) for your character to audible yell out phrases like:

"Freeze!! Get down on the ground!"

"Put your weapon on the ground!"

"Are you friendly?!"

Simple phrases to yell out that have an immediate impact. In real life, you'd be able to do that while not compromising your aim on the individual. However, with a mouse and keyboard, in order to physically type a message, you're comprising your aim heavily, as you're having to your hand of the gun! There's need to be a simple communication tree mapped to the top row number keys, such as 1 to bring up the menu, then 1-4 to choose the audible yell-outs. But, I'm not sure that can be done in Arma 2.

I know there's already a built in command system, such "Fallout" or "Regroup" which I've never used, but it doesn't seem like it comes with audible cues, nor is it helpful in this game. Just my two cents. I'll create a thread about this and see what people say about it.

[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.

And to that you could say if he had a beacon over his head with flashing arrows saying "I've robbed a bank", immediately after robbing a bank and went to the next town; and the sheriff could know without a doubt those arrows were true, bank robberies wouldn't happen.

That wouldn't be the case because only the person who saw him would recognize him. They'd be the only ones who've seen him, thus they're the only one who has any sort of indicator.

It's the zombie apocalypse' date=' 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.

[/quote']

Such a great EoD statement.

Anyone claiming they'd be able to recognize someones facial features, etc. and need some indication that they've run into each other would only matter if that person has killed you before.

P e r m a d e a t h. You are dead. You have no memory of a previous life, as this is a brand new life. You have never been killed before. And there is nothing to remember.

First, I don't know why you think it'd only be about people who have killed you. You'd be able to tag almost anyone. To repeat, this would be you making mental note of people you'd see like you would in real life. In real life you can go 'Oh hey, it's that 6ft2 white guy with half his face burned, I remember seeing him near Manor street helping out that wounded guy'. Here, you can't do that because everyone looks the same. Whether or not they're actually hostile is up to them. Also, I've survived several encounters where neither party dies. Shots fired, missed or hit but not enough to kill and escape.

Second, I never made the claim that the tags would persist through death. If you do manage to kill the person, then yes, tag gone and you don't remember the face who killed you. If they don't, I don't see why your character couldn't, through this mechanic that would represent that you do actually have some cognitive function, of memorize something about the player that attacked you. Again, this function would be used to represent that the skins, despite barely having any, do have defining features.

[synesthesia 4]

Was the bandit skin system perfect? No. But there needs to be some kind of incentive to stop people from just murdering everyone else they meet. For gameplay purposes or to get some kind of semblance of real cooperation/defection behavior, take your pick.

Theres quite a bit of truth in this. Trust is an amazing gameplay element, this kind of removes it. I know there will be exceptions to it, but the truth about this, is that most players you will find, will now dont have a clue to your intentioons, not even the slightest, and probably shoot first. i know i will, and in my entire time with the mod till now, i havent killed a single player.

Maybe the ability to pin them down, direct chat working to tell them to freeze, stuff like that will work. A friend came up with an idea today.

What if we do add Body language? Maybe bandits would have more agressive, brutal movements, maybe more military, like checking their weapons?; while the survivors move more 'innocently'? A good mocap session could probably help a lot with the discussion here.

The only thing that worries me here is that player interactions may be narrowed down. I know that the bandit sighting was a pretty much one sided choice, so we can all agree that it was flawed. Butnow, rather than taking our time to choose if giving trust or not, im afraid we might see everybody as bandits.

Being it a game, in the end, there is no remorse, so killing is not that big a deal if you dont show a player consequence. It becomes just loot, might as well be some gold coins in there. anyway. Cant wait to get home and boot it up, and meet with my brother in the woods. Gotta get back to work!

[Njordin 0]

Lootable skins and kevlar wests.... and i´m happy.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Watch this video very closely, and tell me the precise moment the character changes into a different skin.

[tokzul 0]

anyway. Cant wait to get home and boot it up' date=' and meet with my brother in the woods. Gotta get back to work!

[/quote']

Love it! I am 4 days into the game and am thoroughly enjoying the game.

I am struggling to understand the fuss, as I know nothing different. I know I see people screaming bandit and of course automatically you are to assume that the one with the mask on, is a bandit. TBH, I have only ran into 2 bandits the entire time I have been playing the game. I have been killed or shot at by WAY more folks without a mask then vise versa.

I have NEVER found myself roleplaying in a game at all and in this game I find myself roleplaying a CRAP ton. Not to the extreme my cousin who I co-op with in game(The Capulet). Like him planning coordinates and saying this is where we are going to log out. ALTHOUGH, I did log out the first night on the top of a radio tower in a town full of zombies.....with a headache (screen Shaking) and 5 bullets in my .38.... Don't do that...It is just DUMB...

Here I am at work combing through the forums just to get my fix of some part of the game in general :P

~Tokzul

[CarrierMobility 5]

The "herp derp that isn't how it works in real life" argument is completely useless because this is in fact a game' date=' not real life. As such, you just don't get real life behavior from people unless you impose non-RL constraints - because not only do actions have completely different consequences, but what's at stake is completely different.

...

It's the same here.

In real life, the stakes are people's lives, the act of killing someone is rare, and every non-psychopath has massive barriers against doing it. But this is a game, where the stakes are simply your current equipment, the act of killing someone is the click of a mouse button, and "boredom" is enough of a reason to do it. And there's no incentive not to...

[/quote']

This is exactly correct. By creating a game you have, by definition, laid down some "rules". These rules may line up decently with "reality", or they may not. Zombies being attracted by sound seems realistic, but every zombie within a mile being attracted by a hunting rifle vs. a pistol is not realistic. Still, it's a decent "rule" to make because it adds an element of risk/reward for the player. The player knows that their action (firing the rifle) has consequences (large zombie pull). That consequence informs their decision making.

In real life, attempting to attack someone who you KNOW is armed brings with it significant risk. That risk does not translate into the game world, because the consequence of failure is PERMANENT DEATH. The only way that those making the "realism" argument for removal of the bandit skins can remain logically cogent is to also argue for permanent character death. ... Any takers?

[The Killing Joke 43]

The only way that those making the "realism" argument for removal of the bandit skins can remain logically cogent is to also argue for permanent character death.

Your argument is not logical, due to a failure in mutual exclusivity within the argument itself. You're smart, so I'll let you tell me why I'm right.

;)

[CarrierMobility 5]

The only way that those making the "realism" argument for removal of the bandit skins can remain logically cogent is to also argue for permanent character death.

Your argument is not logical' date=' due to a failure in mutual exclusivity within the argument itself. You're smart, so I'll let you tell me why I'm right.

;)

[/quote']

I'm happy to listen to any constructive, logcal counter-argument you have to the point I made.

Your last post doesn't count, however.

Since I am both smart and also kind, I will let you try again.

[koenigscat 10]

You will find skins around the world' date=' that you can wear if you choose.

[/quote']

Awww, could you please disperse some ghillie suits or items to craft ghillie suits troughout the map?? You can have delicious tears of joy from me and my friends if you do :')

I mean, please, look at this: http://youtu.be/-1bVA7Q6muk

[The Killing Joke 43]

The only way that those making the "realism" argument for removal of the bandit skins can remain logically cogent is to also argue for permanent character death.

I'm happy to listen to any constructive' date=' logcal counter-argument you have to the point I made. Your last post doesn't count, however. Since I am both smart and also kind, I will let you try again. [/quote']

Ok, then. You say that if someone wants to use "realism" then they have to argue for "permanent character death". (You did say that, right?) I say you're incorrect, because "realism" is both a quantitative and qualitative term. How much realism are we talking, here?

Given, if someone said, "I want 100% realism!!!" then you might have a bit more leverage in demanding that they lump "permanent character death" in there, but as it is, you are the only one saying that this is a requirement.

As it is, this is the flaw in your argument. I don't have to throw "permanent character death" in there - at all - if I ask for a little bit of realism. I actually don't have to include any non sequiturs in there at all.

[CarrierMobility 5]

The only way that those making the "realism" argument for removal of the bandit skins can remain logically cogent is to also argue for permanent character death.

I'm happy to listen to any constructive' date=' logcal counter-argument you have to the point I made. Your last post doesn't count, however. Since I am both smart and also kind, I will let you try again. [/quote']

Ok, then. You say that if someone wants to use "realism" then they have to argue for "permanent character death". (You did say that, right?) I say you're incorrect, because "realism" is both a quantitative and qualitative term. How much realism are we talking, here?

Given, if someone said, "I want 100% realism!!!" then you might have a bit more leverage in demanding that they lump "permanent character death" in there, but as it is, you are the only one saying that this is a requirement.

As it is, this is the flaw in your argument. I don't have to throw "permanent character death" in there - at all - if I ask for a little bit of realism. I actually don't have to include any non sequiturs in there at all.

You just proved my point exactly. Now you're backtracking from the "everything must be realistic!" stance you were using to justify the removal of the skins.

So, your stance on realism is not absolute. It's fluid - you say you are asking for "a little bit" of realism.

You (and the other promoters of this change) want the "little bit" of realism that benefits them, AND they want to ignore the realism that doesn't benefit them.

You just broke your own argument.

---

All of this to say the following......

The "realism" line of argument is bunk. The focus of this discussion should be not on what is "most realistic", but instead on what provides the most reasonable and balanced gameplay experience for all types of players.