Bandit/Survivor Morphing to be removed

[jezex90 12]

• Wedding dresses so we can get in-game married
  
• Possibility of capes
  You had me interested until you brought up those two possibilities Dhal; I had to laugh out loud :D.
  

On the flip side it would be awesome if item slots could be a possibility in the future of this game (In the near future of ARMA3 or sooner)' date=' would love to run about the place in a biker helmet and bank suit.

[/quote']

[CarrierMobility 5]

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

It's called having a "discussion", and it's part of refining ideas. Rocket asked for feedback, so we're giving him feedback.

[harkonian 4]

My original point is that the devs put bandit skins in for their own reasons' date=' they're taking it out for yours... 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.[/quote']

It's not devs -- there is no DayZ mod team. It's just rocket. And once you've read a few posts by rocket, you will realize he is not really influenced much by the community. He'll listen to suggestions and if he thinks they are good, he'll consider implementing them. But the only effect overly vocal players have on him is he gets more delicious salty player tears to enjoy. Seriously. He doesn't give a shit.

The original intent was pretty obviously to give killing other players some kind of weight and meaning on those who do the killing.

It was an experiment in emergent gameplay to encourage more interesting interactions. That's it. It wasn't meant specifically as a penalty. Rocket has stated that the feature wasn't working out as he hoped. So' date=' he's removing it in favor of other features -- findable/wearable skins -- which might encourage more interesting emergent gamplay.

Taking it out only serves those who want killing other players to mean nothing to them.

That is yet to be seen. We don't know what the result will be yet. It could be exactly as you say, or it could be more complex than that. I play as a survivor, so while this will make my life more difficult, it will certainly be more interesting as well.

[Nitrous (DayZ) 0]

Wow' date=' 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.

[/quote']

If you think Rocket would just listen to whining, then youre sadly mistaken. He has no qualms in telling someone to fuck off if they say something stupid or something he doesnt agree with, so the point your making on "Bandits getting their own way" is a lost cause.

The changes are being made after he has listened to all points made, by all sides. Hes heard the Survivors side of the tale and hes heard the Bandits, and the obvious conclusion is that he agreed with the Bandits that the current skin system is one sided and broken and thats probably down to bandits making better points in general.

Ordinarily I would agree with you that devs should avoid listening to forum warriors, but for once the opposite is true and the skin removal is a good step, even if youre a survivor (Which I have been for 70% of my playtime).

EDIT: In case you hadnt noticed, the skins are being removed, so everyone who has argued against them has won this round.

[CarrierMobility 5]

You have absolutely no justification to say that' date=' by killing other players, you have the right to assign them a different skin, arbitrarily.

...

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

TKJ

[/quote']

Please look up the definition of "arbitrary". You are assigned a bandit skin based on your actions. It is not a punishment, it is a consequence. Removing consequences from choices leads to an uninteresting, unplayable game.

Like it or not, this change incentives certain behavior - namely, the wanton killing of unknown players.

[Pharmakon 8]

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']

I very strongly disagree with your ontology.

The way people play is not only determined by top-down rules, but also by the way they interact. They obviously can't really play the way they want if "shoot on sight" is the norm, now can they? In any case it's not what I'd call a player-driven game. Less rules does not mean more freedom. Can you imagine a sport with no rules? It would end up being MORE predictable since every action would be meaningless.

Sorry to quash your libertarian dreams, but people are unlikely to cooperate and form dynamic structures on their own either since they are random nameless anonymous internet strangers. The only way organizations will form is through external online message boards and communities: we shouldn't have to be members of r/dayz, RockPaperShotgun or SomethingAwful for the game to be enjoyable

You yourself have acknowledged players would be almost certain to choose to shoot first during encounters when morphing is removed, and then you go on to say the devs shouldn't do anything about this because it would... violate their rights? I will assume that's only a semi-serious statement, but the point is, as the old saying goes, freedom to act does not mean freedom of consequences.

[bamsetd 0]

This change makes sense. I like all the tears from people who say it breaks the imersion of the game and such xD In real life, you're not able to tell if a person have killed something/one by looking at them, and it only adds to getting to know the people you surround yourself with.. Most of you see this mod as a fullyfledge game already, NEWSFLASH, it's not..

It's a mod and NOW is the time to test stuff, so quit your darn whining and come up with ideas that makes sence or just keep shut. Seems like a lot of you people forget why we are here.

[Stealth Pyro 3]

Hmmm... what if, they add an interaction menu that is available any time there is another human player within ~1km or so? Upon seeing another player, you would look in their general direction, and hit "Declare your peaceful intent" or something, and that would indicate to both the player and the server that you mean no harm. If the player kills you after you declare your peace, they lose lots of humanity points (more than if you hadn't declared peace). If you kill them, you lose a lot of humanity points. Otherwise, you group as a squad. I think the largest contributing factor that leads people to becoming bandits is that you can't trust anyone. They can say they're friendly in-chat, and then simply shoot you as you approach them. If you both declare peace before approaching each other, you would both have something to lose if you decided to murder each other (a big hit in humanity rating).

I now think the goal should be to reward for having a good humanity rating, rather than punishing for having a bad humanity rating. How to reward the good, humane players is the question.

[The Killing Joke 43]

It's very serious.

I'll be honest. A lot of your words were very large, and I didn't understand some of them. For that reason, I'm not going to go all anal and attempt to dissect every statement you've made. That has been done to death in this thread.

I have acknowledged the fact that people may 'shoot first', and I have acknowledged (previously, and in other threads) that they may be more cautious. The truth is, nobody knows. (And no, you yourself cannot say "this is the way it is". Sorry.))

I will continue stand firm on the opinion that you cannot arbitrarily restrict someone because of their gameplay in DayZ.

Should you be able to call out players who kill others? Sure. Should you be able to see that they've done something you don't like, just by looking at them? No. That is unfair. It goes for survivors and bandits. I'd like to see something more, but the humanity system and skin assignment is not the way.

TKJ

[TeaLeaf 5]

I think the solution to the whole Bandit/Survivor balance issue is to make it even harder to solo the zombie enemies. Then naturally people that more willing to work together with others will have a much greater survival rate than those that kill everyone.

[The Killing Joke 43]

I think the solution to the whole Bandit/Survivor balance issue is to make it even harder to solo the zombie enemies. Then naturally people that more willing to work together with others will have a much greater survival rate than those that kill everyone.

Why do you feel the need to force people to work together? There isn't an issue of balance, because everybody - good and bad alike - have the exact same skills and choices available to them.

Also, in my old age, I've decided that I really don't like people. I like to play on my own. I don't have to rely on anyone. As it is, it's hard as hell to solo in this game, regardless of your skin. You have to sneak everywhere, and that takes a buttload of time.

As it is, it is the survivors that have it easy. I look forward to the day when my solo ass can be seen wearing a normal skin.

TKJ

[spitfir3tornado 11]

Hmmm... what if' date=' they add an interaction menu that is available any time there is another human player within ~1km or so? Upon seeing another player, you would look in their general direction, and hit "Declare your peaceful intent" or something, and that would indicate to both the player and the server that you mean no harm. If the player kills you after you declare your peace, they lose lots of humanity points (more than if you hadn't declared peace). If you kill them, you lose a lot of humanity points. Otherwise, you group as a squad. I think the largest contributing factor that leads people to becoming bandits is that you can't trust anyone. They can say they're friendly in-chat, and then simply shoot you as you approach them. If you both declare peace before approaching each other, you would both have something to lose if you decided to murder each other (a big hit in humanity rating).

I now think the goal should be to reward for having a good humanity rating, rather than punishing for having a bad humanity rating. How to reward the good, humane players is the question.

[/quote']

Rocket has said he wants to keep GUIs for things that can't be displayed any other way, and wants to avoid them most of the time. This way just makes it too static and dainty, and way too unrealistic.

[synesthesia 4]

Well, im probably late to say this, but here are my two cents. If you are going to remove bandit skins, then let there be some sort of cue as of the humanity of the player.

In a real situation we wouldnt shoot on sight; we would study body language, what they are saying before approaching, to see if theyre friendly or not. I think the bandit skins represents that, given that the game cannot show the subtleness of the stuff i said before.

So maybe some sort of cue, or a fixed Direct chat, whatever to not turn this into a deathmatch? I know i wont trust anyone, and probably shoot first and ask questions later, since my humanity changes nothing.

Im afraid this change will turn the silent chernarus into a warzone. Im not sure thats what we love about the game.

In any case, the mod is Fantastic. I hadnt been this engaged with a videogame in ages. Amazing work, thanks a LOT for it.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Well' date=' im probably late to say this, but here are my two cents. If you are going to remove bandit skins, then let there be some sort of cue as of the humanity of the player.[/quote']

No. Why would you know immediately, anybody's humanity?

In a real situation we wouldnt shoot on sight; we would study body language' date=' what they are saying before approaching, to see if theyre friendly or not. I think the bandit skins represents that, given that the game cannot show the subtleness of the stuff i said before.[/quote']

In a real situation you wouldn't shoot on sight.

So maybe some sort of cue' date=' or a fixed Direct chat, whatever to not turn this into a deathmatch? I know i wont trust anyone, and probably shoot first and ask questions later, since my humanity changes nothing.[/quote']

Then you are playing the game with a handicap. You can elevate your gameplay to the next level.

Im afraid this change will turn the silent chernarus into a warzone. Im not sure thats what we love about the game.

I will say this. You are not alone. There's a lot of people who share your limited view and opinion.

TKJ

[TeaLeaf 5]

I think the solution to the whole Bandit/Survivor balance issue is to make it even harder to solo the zombie enemies. Then naturally people that more willing to work together with others will have a much greater survival rate than those that kill everyone.

Why do you feel the need to force people to work together? There isn't an issue of balance' date=' because everybody - good and bad alike - have the exact same skills and choices available to them.

Also, in my old age, I've decided that I really don't like people. I like to play on my own. I don't have to rely on anyone. As it is, it's hard as hell to solo in this game, regardless of your skin. You have to sneak everywhere, and that takes a buttload of time.

As it is, it is the survivors that have it easy. I look forward to the day when my solo ass can be seen wearing a normal skin.

TKJ

[/quote']

I'm simply saying that IF we want more teamwork then that is what I think would work best. If you'd rather everyone lone wolf it, fair enough.

[vedicardi 7]

I wonder how many people who used to have a "reason" to keep their humanity up will now think its pointless (which will come later to sting them in the ass!)

[WalkerDown (DayZ) 296]

I'm simply saying that IF we want more teamwork then that is what I think would work best. If you'd rather everyone lone wolf it' date=' fair enough.

[/quote']

This.. and i would add: if we'll end to lonewolf, what's the purpose of the multiplay? Let's do it single player.

[calin_banc 5]

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.

[Wolfskin75 1]

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.

[The Killing Joke 43]

I'm simply saying that IF we want more teamwork then that is what I think would work best. If you'd rather everyone lone wolf it' date=' fair enough.[/quote']

I don't like to put 'everyone' in the same bucket. I would like a balance would be best, so that the solo'ers aren't angry it's too hard, and the team'ers aren't angry it's too easy. Or vice versa.

They're not ostracized because of their "skin"' date=' 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.[/quote']

Yes, but I know more than enough people IRL who you wouldn't automagically know had been incarcerated. That's key.

Considering the later' date=' the game absolutely needs to give a motivation to players NOT to kill each other and a way to deal with the "renegades".[/quote']

And I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the game needs a way to deal with people who are exploiting - spawn camping and killing players on spawn in, and nothing more. Other than that, players killing other players is a perfectly fair game mechanic, in it's own right.

In the end' date=' 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.[/quote']

He does. If you don't devolve, and kill everything in sight, you glow bright white and make an easy target for zeds.

;)

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.

No. Sorry. Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad. /Zoidberg

TKJ

[Lady Kyrah 1109]

A lot of peoples here don't realise that retribution for our "sins" does not exist outside of an ordered society.

There is no god to protect you, no policeman to avenge your death, dayZ is basically hunger games with zombies.

[Pharmakon 8]

It's very serious

I'll be honest. A lot of your words were very large' date=' and I didn't understand some of them. For that reason, I'm not going to go all anal and attempt to dissect every statement you've made. That has been done to death in this thread.

[/quote']

Sorry, I tend to get a bit carried away with my arguments on the internet: since the people I am talking to are not physically present to interrupt me, it's easy to forget that I have to make sense to more than just myself.

I will continue stand firm on the ophttp://www.dayzmod.com/forum/images/smilies/cool.pnginion that you cannot arbitrarily restrict someone because of their gameplay in DayZ.

Should you be able to call out players who kill others? Sure. Should you be able to see that they've done something you don't like' date=' just by looking at them? No. That is unfair. It goes for survivors and bandits. I'd like to see something more, but the humanity system and skin assignment is not the way.

TKJ

[/quote']

I think the problem once again is that you are confusing "arbitrary" for "consequence-bearing". But isn't that what video games are all about? They are, like any other computer program, built from the ground up as systems of triggers and reactions. Of course, the better alternative is for the consequences not to be programmed but player-determined. However, this does not seem to be possible yet, since everyone is INTERCHANGEABLE: there are 80000 players who play at different times, on different servers, who's names are unknown and who generally can't be told apart from one another. There aren't going to be reputations because the players are interchangeable, and there lacks a form of communication through which they could propagate, much less anyone you could "call out" TO. Given these circumstances, there aren't really any possibilities for interpersonal relations in general, since there is no way to make a connection with other players: if you say "I'm friendly", people will avoid you anyway: we need references to convey peoples identities beyond what they willingly display.

Yes, the post-apocalyptic scenario is usually about the absence of any such referents, and it is true that the game would be dull if we had certainty we could trust random people. But a good post-apocalyptic story is also about the tentative reconstruction of ways of understanding interpersonal ties: and since we're always playing with different random interchangeable people, this is something we simply can't do by ourselves: "purity" and "realism" are not always realistic goals for the development of systems (or lack thereof) of interpersonal relations because players are interchangeable in an inevitably non-realistic way. It is true that systems can be too abstract or cumbersome, and can detract from the experience, but there absolutely needs to be something that makes up for the fact that players are interchangeable.

Lady Kyrah, and many others, posit that impunity is the only realistic scenario in this post-apocalyptic realm, I have, in previous posts, expressed my disdain for the rhetoric of ethical "realism" in this game where the very mode of insertion into a common world is not realistic. Furthermore, I feel it is not exactly realistic, and much less fair either, that some players can gang up through message boards and external voice chats to work together in harmony while other players can't even stand the sight of each other. In the end, we still have to think about whether this game remains enjoyable, I think it should ensure that everyone can have at least the minimum of mutual trust and communication required to enjoy cooperation once in a while.

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, you even compare this to racism. This seems a bit too inflexible, 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?

[CarrierMobility 5]

If the goal is ultra-realism, then you're right - removing the bandit skins is one step closer to reality.

Then again, if you're going for ultra-realism, please remove all zombies from the game - since it is impossible for dead bodies to re-animate.

Now, we just have a game where human beings shoot each other for what they're carrying.

That's a little TOO much like real life for me.

It's still a game, and yes - I'll say it - it should be fun to play.

[IAmMarshicus 1]

I look forward to running around in a ghillie suit as a lonewolf. :D

I do think this will make meeting other players more tense, however. But then again everyone seems to fire at me anyway so I doubt much will change.

[Tukker 0]

well it's pretty apprarent in this thread that bandits like the proposed change.....that's odd? /sarcasm