Suggestion: Natural Consequences For Murder

[ssimmons 72]

First let me state that I love this mod, thanks for making it!

I think player killing is an important part of the game, but it seems like there is a chain-reaction happening right now with player killing -- everyone assumes that everyone is going to kill them so it's shoot first, ask questions later. This is hurting the potential community aspect to the game.

One suggestion I have is to implement a natural consequence for murder: blood lust causes excessive hunger and thirst. For example, if I were to murder another player, my hunger and thirst would immediately go into the critical stage (flashing red). To refill, it would take, say, 3 or 4 times as much food and water as usual to restore it back to full.

The point here is that it is a costly proposition to murder another player -- so survivors who focus solely on player killing are going to have to scavenge up a lot of food water to sustain themselves other than just the food and water they loot from their victims.

On the same token, a player who successfully defends themselves from murder still suffers the same consequences.

This is a game, but still ... in a post-apocalyptic world, wouldn't survivors be more inclined to work together than murder every stranger they encountered?

Edited July 16, 2012 by Caelib

[capitainedesolation@yahoo.fr 119]

Why does everyone want to nerf bandits and not BUFF survivors?

Add more items that need multiple people to use (like blood bags), stuff like that, not nerfing the solo bandit.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Would you be willing to entertain a "natural consequence" for inaction on the part of survivors?

Over time guilt would accumulate at your lack of ability to rid the world of criminals more regularly. For every 8 hours that passes without a successful bandit kill, your "guilt level" will go up. As it rises, you will become unsure of yourself and unsteady. You will run more slowly, shoot less accurately, and require more food and water to sate your needs.

One bandit kill is all it will take to clear your guilt, but let it get to maximum and you will be a whimpering clod, barely able to hold a gun let alone shoot it, and occasionally you will be beset by fits of uncontrollable crying and sniffling as you involuntarily mourn the loss of all the survivors whose murders you might have prevented if you had killed more bandits.

If you're not willing to entertain this idea (as I'm sure you're not) then take a moment and reconsider the wisdom of your original suggestion.

Edited July 16, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[Golgo82 28]

So introduce Bloodlust as a stat that despite what Bloodlust actually means increase your hunger and thirst instead of making someone crave killing more people?

No.

Just calling it natural doesn't make it natural.

Killing someone makes you

1. regret it (for those with a conscience)

2. sleep less good (see 1. or 4.)

3. feel the recoil of the gun (for all those cold-blooded killers)

4. even more paranoid (somebody might want to avenge your victim)

5. feel empowered (you know since you took life away)

6. lose ammo (only if done with a gun)

7. sick (for those with a weak stomach)

8. give your position away (again only if done with a gun)

9. aggro Zeds in the Vicinity (see 6. and 8.)

etc. pp.

but it does not make you hungry or thirsty

Edited July 16, 2012 by Golgo82

[FoulMouth 26]

I've killed mad people in real life and haven't had an increase in appetite and thirst.

Edited July 16, 2012 by FoulMouth

[Sister Fister 25]

Hunger and thirst should certainly not be a function of murder. This mechanic is not a natural response to player killing as the topic suggests. Creating such a consequence is unfairly punishing bandits, and also seems totally arbitrary. It also seems to conflict with the vision that is had for Day Z: no rules.

What's next?

Overweight characters, cause they've murdered and as a result eaten to much? Berzerker status cause of blood lust? Killing a bandit will instantly make you full?

There should be no mechanic to prevent or interfere with pvp. Full stop. Rocket said it best, and I'm paraphrasing of course:

"We would ideally play with more subtle things --like faces. Perhaps more scars. Or, after looting a freshly slaughtered player, you would have blood on your hands for like an hour. We need to play with those ideas, but, I think punishing banditry is just not in the scope of what we want to do. If we do that, it will totally destroy everything. We need to keep expirimenting untill we find the write answer [to pvp]." ~Rocket

See 9:40

http://www.dayzpvp.c...rezzed-session/

Edited July 16, 2012 by Sister Fister

[KrystoferRobin 67]

punishing a playstyle = bad.

rewarding a playstyle = good.

If we want more co-operative, friendly gameplay, we need elements in place that require trust and team work that serve as a reward for co-operation. Rocket has said this. I agree fully. I have 5 children. Punishment does. not. work. Positive reinforcement however (rewarding the behaviors you DO want) works flawlessly. Rocket mentioned construction options, which would most likely require cooperative elements. Survivors could build and maintain safe havens, which could then in turn be raided by hardcore bandits who would also have to work together, eliminating even more of the lone-wolf mentality that has become the goto survival mechanic.

Other suggestions I've seen/read/comeup with.

radios for long range comms

ability to group and respawn in somewhat close proximity

vehicle construction (not repair) & upgrading (add armor to your car/bus/whatever, mount weaponry etc).

spawn region selection

territory control/ownership

revival mechanics (friends have a chance to revive you from death)

social-effect-only clothing/accessories (special sunglasses, hats or jackets, once you find a change of clothes, you can morph the generic outfit into one you have earned, not something you spawn in with).

larger groups/squads reduce zed spawn in the area, making sweeps safer.

more/better loot spawns in the area of influence of a group/party.

We have all seen a lot of "OMFG DO SOMETHING ABOUT BANDITS" threads, but not many about "OMFG REWARD OTHER PLAYSTYLES". If the perks and priveledges of being friendly/co-operative outweighed (or at least equaled) the perks of murdering everyone you see, there would be quite a lot more friendlies around.

[skudd3r 44]

I have no guilt, I murder 100's of survivors daily.

My heartbeat is more like a buzz sound now.

Edited July 16, 2012 by SKuDD3r

[fundan@gmx.de 82]

Do I have to drink from the corpse or can I fill my canteen with the fresh blood? Oh and stop watching Vampire movies and go out and talk to people more often....

Edited July 16, 2012 by bonsai

[Blindingsun 233]

what the hell are these bandit things everyone's talking about? o.O

[moeller.37@wright.edu 6]

Why does everyone want to nerf bandits and not BUFF survivors?

Add more items that need multiple people to use (like blood bags), stuff like that, not nerfing the solo bandit.

You don't even need blood bags. Killing animals is easy and as a solo Bandit you're not ever supposed to get hit. You kill before you're noticed. There aren't many ways to nerf a solo bandit. You can't buff groups too much because they already have an easy time surviving. The solo survivor is the one who needs a buff. The problem is there's not really a way to do that either without helping the solo bandit.

Edited July 16, 2012 by I am a Failure (Destry)

[Michaelvoodoo25 3120]

Sounds familiar,

The only way to lower the murderers is to become one and hunt them down, start a guild, create the Knights Watch. Smoke a kipper, but please remember nothing will change until you do something about it.

Play as you would if your life depended on it.

[Daddy'o (DayZ) 146]

Otherwise a pretty good suggestion but why it won't get implemented because this is a type of a simulation that tries to portray a realistic zombie apocalypse. Shooting a person does not realistically make you thirsty and hungry.

That, and rocket has already stated many times he does NOT aim to balance the sandbox. He in fact, has stated that since he does not consider this a game, but a social experiment sandbox, he WANTS there to be imbalance.

Otherwise, the humanity thing as well as the heart beat things still align with realism, kind of, I can understand the reasoning behind both, and I think those are following the right track.

I instead propose a fully realistic social anxiety meter. A person, any person, is a social animal. It would only be natural for him to long for social contacts and social exchange. Being by yourself does cause anxiety in real life, and it doesn't even take that long before you start to feel lonely and feel like the walls are closing in on you.

In DayZ it wouldn't be too hard to implement physical penalties due to high social anxiety, and have it go down by being close to other players for some time.

[ronda174 3]

Killing someone makes you

1. regret it (for those with a conscience)

2. sleep less good (see 1. or 4.)

3. feel the recoil of the gun (for all those cold-blooded killers)

4. even more paranoid (somebody might want to avenge your victim)

5. feel empowered (you know since you took life away)

6. lose ammo (only if done with a gun)

7. sick (for those with a weak stomach)

8. give your position away (again only if done with a gun)

9. aggro Zeds in the Vicinity (see 6. and 8.)

etc. pp.

?

1/2 = same

4/8/9/6 - basicly avoidable with the current game mechanics/glitches (ammo bug/disconnecting)

3/7 - i dont even..

#5 wins

some kind of trauma or dehumanization should be considered as a realistic consequence. dunno what to implement as punishment tho

Edited July 16, 2012 by ronda174

[jetao2008@hotmail.com 175]

Honestly i don't think there should be THIS KIND of punishment to bandits. Killing causes the player to be thirsty? It makes no sense.

I'd rather have something like the bandit skin, or anything close to that, but nothing that actually affects a player's status like that.

[Blindingsun 233]

why were those white bandit skins removed?

[UbiquitousBadGuy 846]

Since you phrased this as a suggestion, it's being moved to Suggestions.

[Dr. Toros 8]

why were those white bandit skins removed?

They were removed because rocket implimented them incredibly poorly.

They were incredibly easy to get, and were permanant until the character died. After dying, the character was back to a normal skin.

The correct way to impliment them would be 5 murders to flag someone as bandit, your murder count is reduced by 1 every realtime 48 hours, and attach it to the account, not the life.

Once you have a group or a stash, you aren't starting fresh every life, and pretending that bandits weren't going to murder after dying was foolish.

Tl;dr we had and then lost bandit skins because rocket didn't do his research or think them through well enough. The system I just described was used by Ultima Online, an old game that had unlimited pvp and full loot everywhere outside of cities.

[Sticky (DayZ) 38]

Why does everyone want to nerf bandits and not BUFF survivors?

Add more items that need multiple people to use (like blood bags), stuff like that, not nerfing the solo bandit.

Because if you buff mechanics like that, then you make bandits that group together benefit more, thus promoting more bandits....

[Sister Fister 25]

Because if you buff mechanics like that, then you make bandits that group together benefit more, thus promoting more bandits....

This actually brings up a valid point:

• There is no reason why you cannot give yourself a blood transfusion. Why are two people required?
  

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Tl;dr we had and then lost bandit skins because rocket didn't do his research or think them through well enough.

Hey fancypants, guess what? This is an open alpha test. This is rocket doing his research.

So basically you're complaining that he didn't do his research before doing his research. Stunning.

And to put a cherry on top of your shit sundae, you're also completely wrong about the reasons they were removed. He took them out because they made no consideration for mitigating circumstances and would be applied in many cases to the defensive party or player. There are countless scenarios in which an innocent or defensive player would be labeled a bandit for acting in the interest of their own lives or property.

Likewise, it goes against the core tenet of the game not to judge and punish players for a particular style of play.

Giving players the means to make their own observations and judgements about other players fits with DayZ.

A magical divine entity that whispers in your ear from 1000m away whether someone is naughty or nice does not.

Bandit skins are gone because they were the game design equivalent of a dunce cap. A broken, lazy, inelegant, brute-force solution that did more harm than good and your suggestion does not improve them in any appreciable way.

Edited July 16, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby