Post apacolyptic greifing simulator for D-bags

[noobfun 87]

seems reasonable....and it would only work in servers with nameplates enabled so bandits just wouldnt play on those servers. Its a good idea but unrealistic with the current state of server system in DAyZ

dont like doing that anyway, nameplates mean ranges, ranges mean any nubbin with a page up key can sniper reasonably well

playing on vet servers without name plates/ ranges is probably why i dont see the hoard of evil snipers everywhere out ta get me other ppl seem to, maybe thats one subtle way to do it, remove free ranging measurments so all wanna be snipers suddenly need a whole lot more ammo to hit anything

Edited July 17, 2012 by stuffnthings

[whatup2003 67]

The problem is, while Rocket himself claim that he's merely an architect, a tool provider, and the decisions and choices of actions are made by player themselves, there are simply not enough tools to allow survivors to arm themselves against bandits. In reality, people would occupy an area, build fortifications, organize local millitia to maintain orders, and etc. In Dayz, survivors do not have that option. On the other hand, all bandits need are weapons which are laying everywhere. So until there are tools provided for survivors to have their choice of maintaining order, some sort of handicap should be put on to the bandits and greifers.

[Dasein808 12]

AGain, forgive me for being thick...but how do you propose i do that? "Visually asses" the other player i mean.

By looking at their weapons and comparing them to your own to decide whether or not they have reason to kill you for what you own, or what they may think that you own; from there, it's up to you to determine the rest through what they say.

I still say it's too risky to interact with strangers which is why I prefer to remain within my own group and generally avoid other survivors.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Dasein808

[omgwtfbbq (DayZ) 1069]

But the fact there is no grouping system, coupled with rampant player killing makes things really chaotic really fast. I am part of a group like I've said. That doesn't stop instances of friendly fire if we're not in a chat due to the nature of the game. I've been killed by my own friendlies because they won't take time to determine whether the person in front of them is hostile when in our own territory.

Nothing better than getting an M1911 round in the back of the head followed by 6 steam chat sounds of your buddy saying "OMG I HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS YOU! SO SORRY! I'll WATCH YOUR STUFF!"

"PvP with PvE element thrown in" : ass backwards, it's player vs. environment with PvP mixed in.

i think that you should be able to do what someone suggested a while ago: you have a color for a group. like, torn clothes of a certain kind to make a colored gang. would indicate teams.

[fish911503 136]

By looking at their weapons and comparing them to your own to decide whether or not they have reason to kill you for what you own, or what they may think that you own; from there, it's up to you to determine the rest through what they say.

I still say it's too risky to interact with strangers which is why I prefer to remain within my own group and generally avoid other survivors.

Kudos....your logic is untouchable

[SylasTheOld 11]

You know.. one good way to stop such independent griefing is to force the spawn rates down so low for basic necessities such as food and water, and make medicine super rare... guns plentiful but ammo rare... then people will be forced to trade and band together to survive and share their food and water... and even ammo.

It's just all about economics.

[Dasein808 12]

Kudos....your logic is untouchable

I know.

[noobfun 87]

You know.. one good way to stop such independent griefing is to force the spawn rates down so low for basic necessities such as food and water, and make medicine super rare... guns plentiful but ammo rare... then people will be forced to trade and band together to survive and share their food and water... and even ammo.

It's just all about economics.

but why would i trade you a hoard load of ammo for that can of beans (means me going off to hunt down the ammo and risk bandit/Z encounters) when i can just use 1 round to pay for everything with the best buddies headshot discount? suddenly that fresh spawner with his torch and can of beans is a valued target not just somthing to waste ammo on for jollies

i dont have a gps, ive only ever had 2 gps since i started playing in 1.6.x (yeah im really unlucky at finding them and maps) .. unsuprisingly its the first thing i check for off every body i make, making things scarecer to find just means i have to kill more people to find the stuff i need, becasue if i kill them its like free looting in towns, the went to zelenegrosk i went to polana ... 1 bullet means i get zelenegorsks decent loot as well as the stuff i got in polana

scarcety breeds competition, competition breeds in this game shooting people

but it also does somthing similar if you gives to much gear, back when we spawned with a makarov they rang out across churno all day and night, it was downtown mogadishu in BHD, only no one had the uniforms

ive bumped into more friendly survivors on respawns since starting equipment was stripped then when we had gear, when you all have nothing is the time to make friends and group up, becasue once youve spread out from there all bets are off

one thing i think might make a change to behaviour, removing tents and vehicle storage compartments(except for spares and fuel cans maybe even for spares and jerry cans) ... right now clan member A dies, he needs to scrounge up 3-4 cans of pop and 2 cans of beans, then sprint north reach the tent city and your fully regeared, or have a friend drive down and drop your gear off

with the gear piles gone it would take people a bit longer to gear up back to the private army surplus level, also it would force what rocket hoped for with the inventory and small backpacks, deciding what to take and what not to, inventory managment becomes an issue again, with removing vehicle storage it forces ppl into hard choices, want to drive around in that shiny car with your buddies runnning over noiobs at churno, well now at least one of ya has to actually carry a jerry can around, and you cant just have enough spares to rebuild the car 12211244x over if it gets shot a bit by macarov ammo

people with gear will still shoot anyone they see for fear of loosing it but they are less likley to be doing so on the hills of churno where some guy with an axe and a crouch button can bush whack em from behind

your right about economics. but making things scarce is the wrong way to do it, its making things have value and feel like an achievment to gain that stops people acting like total derps with no fear of loosing it becasue theres another 20 back at camp

Edited July 17, 2012 by stuffnthings

[DeltaElite121 16]

I think it's fairly evident that changes need to be made.. and not necessarily to make "cookie-cutter mode" either. If Rocket seriously thinks he's going to get anything out of this project, he better think again.. because the general public will NOT want to pay to play this game if the sole purpose is to grief other users without any other option because it's pidgeon-holed into a "it's either me or him" over just seeing someone minding their own business. Other full titles have countermeasures and balance, and Rocket seems to think the absence of that will only make things better for everyone.

There's a fine line between freedom of choice, and balance. Go too far on either end and you'll run into problems.. that's why it's so difficult creating a GOOD game; the ideas are the easy part.. the balancing is the most difficult. IMO Rocket's "experiment" just pronounces his laziness. His ideas are great, but his execution of said ideas are terrible currently. Then again, that's my OPINION.

[go4theknees 5]

The butthurt, is strong with this one.

Also if you don't want to get shot, then you should consider shooting first. If not, then cry me a river.

Oh and another thing, a key factor in this game is realism. Thats how things would go down if this happened in real life, whether you believe or not.

Tissue?

LOL no.

In real life most people would be to pussy unless their life was in danger, pretty much nobody in there right minds would shoot some body on sight just because they got some neat shit they want.

Edited July 18, 2012 by go4theknees

[felixthedk@vikingkids.com 18]

akey factor in this game is realism

thats why i can repair a broken truck with a vehicle tire, thats why i can carry a helicopter rotor that alone would probably weight 25kg.

thats why i can carry so much shit in a backpack and not be slowed down

thats why i can aim with perfect precision

thats why i have to eat every 2 hours and drink every 15 minutes.

[skyter 299]

As a developer you have to strike a balance between 'realism' and fun, or you don't have product people are willing to pay for.

So far the only people who find Dayz fun are the new players until they get sick of getting dropped and people with clans, which, let's face it are all really bandits on some level.

The problem is we as a culture need to be spoon fed rewards at fairly short intervals to feel satisfied with something. That's where banditry comes in.

It's the mindset of "why would I spend hours looting when I can let someone do it for me, sit here and camp, and get all that shit with one bullet?"

These are the people who then claim the game is too easy, ironically.

honestly maybe they should just have 2 different type of servers - One with friendly fire and one without out.

bandits are happy, people who join bandit servers know what they're getting into, it would reduce the number of new player kills and give those that want a more cooperative experience a chance to do so. It would allow easier trading within the game between parties without worrying about getting shot in the back as soon as the trade is done.

On servers with friendly fire off, the loot spawns would be cut way down to ensure people didn't just server hop to loot points and hoard.

Win/Win with neither vision of players compromised.

but there will be people on here that would frown at the suggestion.

Edited July 18, 2012 by skyter

[n4ndoz 20]

The only thing that would make sens to implement is the blood marks,and appearent ones. And make they can only be gone by washing your clothes swimming or going by a river/lake/etc.

This way there will be no more than the fake-reallity Rocket want's and will satisfy all the other players.

But, as I've been insisting, it won't stop the CoD d-bags from fragging all around.

A Bandit is generally not a killer by nature, but someone who will STEAL your items and kill you if you try something. Ok, it's better to kill on sight and fuck off the bla bla bla. A CoD player is a guy that kills only for the pleasure of increasing it's Frag count, and is what happens in most of the servers all around.

[sandorski 17]

Random Damage to a Players Inventory when Shot/Killed could help encourage Trade over Killing. How much is hard to say and implementing that kind of thing could go horribly wrong, but it's an interesting idea I have heard mentioned before.

[Rising (DayZ) 99]

I wonder if people realize that even the old mmos like Ultima Online and Lineage 2 had a "red" system for PKers, and that there is some kind of risk vs reward. Not that I am asking for PvP protection, but i agree that bandits needs a hell of a lot more risk than just "getting killed back" .

[Sumdum 29]

I wonder if people realize that even the old mmos like Ultima Online and Lineage 2 had a "red" system for PKers, and that there is some kind of risk vs reward. Not that I am asking for PvP protection, but i agree that bandits needs a hell of a lot more risk than just "getting killed back" .

These games also had a nifty "flagging" system which really really helped. Until they figure out some decent way to determine the aggressor, it's hard to introduce a working "red" system. It would be interesting though.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Sumdum

[fish911503 136]

These games also had a nifty "flagging" system which really really helped. Until they figure out some decent way to determine the aggressor, it's hard to introduce a working "red" system. It would be interesting though.

Heres a thought. When your killed by another player it says..."you were killed by xyz" Now if you choose you can go to website and "report" that you were killed by xyz. Now if xyz is indeed PK'r it will soon become evident my the number of reported murders assosciated with. Then they can be flagged or something. Maybe you can also report people who help you. But in those situations you would actually need to ask the players name. This way we don't nee name plates.

[#BASEDGOD 27]

The grammar, from the title to every post, is absolutely terrible.

Other than that, this thread is TL;DR.

It's an alpha, get used to it. Go make a constructive post in the bug forum or the suggestions forum. I really don't want to see this crybaby shit in the general subforum.

[fish911503 136]

The grammar, from the title to every post, is absolutely terrible.

Other than that, this thread is TL;DR.

It's an alpha, get used to it. Go make a constructive post in the bug forum or the suggestions forum. I really don't want to see this crybaby shit in the general subforum.

Then why did you look at it einstein? Maybe the suggestions area of the forums would be a better area for your post ;)

[battlepanda50 9]

Wow long post, my two cents

I really do not like having to shoot some poor chump in the back but I do so knowing that he could turn around and would likely shoot me or

could even follow me out of town and shoot me in the back while I'm making a fire to cook some meat so killing him and removing him as a threat is

the safest thing to do. killed two guys in polana earlier tonight simply because trying to get out of town unnoticed was more dangerous than killing them.

however one thing that I will say is removing the kill counts on the debug monitor would cut down pk's simply because people would no longer be

seeing their total kills on a screen, that guy would no longer be bragging rights to your mates ("hell yeah 21 kills lol") he would simply be a guy,

taking away the "reward" somewhat if the kill isn't counted anywhere.

also we need something to do once we are geared up other than killing people till someone gets us and then starting again.

douche bag snipers at electro capping newbs with .50 cals, well not much you can do about that, suppose it would be funny sometimes.

[skyter 299]

The grammar, from the title to every post, is absolutely terrible.

Other than that, this thread is TL;DR.

It's an alpha, get used to it. Go make a constructive post in the bug forum or the suggestions forum. I really don't want to see this crybaby shit in the general subforum.

If you didn't read because it was too long, you have no place in criticizing grammar. Which I might add, is leaps and bounds over 99% of the posts made on this forum.

Way to attempt to troll.

The current shoot to kill on site mentality isn't a bug. It's a result of boredom, assholes, and a lack of risk/reward. Killing players is all reward, no risk at this point.

You play with this mentality most assuredly. I just want a feasible option that doesn't REQUIRE you to.

I want to see a product people want to buy and support, not because there's hype and buzz around it for a couple months like now, but because it's actually good and sustainable.

All idiots can do is come in here and say "oh well if it's the apocalypse everybody WOULD kill each other"

In all the horrible events in human history, the fact we're still alive provides evidence to the contrary of his mentality.

Edited July 19, 2012 by skyter

[sheepdawg 278]

So many people defending their shoot first, ask later policy. For now i will continue to kill any human that poses a threat to me. Once the game is ironed out and teaming up is worth more, ill go back to the way i WANT to play, which is surviving, not murdering.

Also who gives a fuck about grammar. Any pole smoker can Google a reason to make a useless flame post about someones use of punctuation marks.

The fucking internet and more so the majority of gaming community has really turned to shit on every and all fronts.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Sheepdawg

[Ejaculacid 19]

Sweet.. SWEET......... SHEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW-UTT TEARS.

[Virfortis 111]

The butthurt, is strong with this one.

Also if you don't want to get shot, then you should consider shooting first. If not, then cry me a river.

Oh and another thing, a key factor in this game is realism. Thats how things would go down if this happened in real life, whether you believe or not.

Tissue?

Do you hear that? That is the sound of a thousand intelligent people facepalming at the notion of your continued existence. Yet sadly, we must be better than you and allow you to continue on using up our precious reserves. I award you no points, and may you finally get some sunlight and cultural enlightenment someday.

The only problem here is that he's trying to take this douchebag simulator and turn it into a unique survival experience.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Virfortis

[Arims 0]

It's alpha...and pvp is what makes this game