Post apacolyptic greifing simulator for D-bags

[Cerven 80]

How does in-game support for groups/parties and channels "ruin" a particular facet of the game? Sure it might not be as realistic as we'd all like but it already happens anyway and has been sanctioned by the developer as ok. Putting it in-game would just make it easier to actually meet people within the game and more easily designate that they aren't hostile without the need to actually know the player before seeing his character.

What about a friends list? If both people confirm the other as friendly, they could easily add them to afforementioned groups, or see what server they're playing on. Maybe even go so far as to say where their character actually is.

I don't see how a menu or lobby chat on a server would disrupt much either. In fact, it would actually allow you to do all the moral character analysis stuff people keep saying is so great from outside of their crosshairs. It would be like global chat, except you would need to be not in the game to use it. You would make friends or partners there that you would have to trust enough to meet in game, with only their assurance. Furthermore, assuming you were both starting new characters at that point, the tension would increase as soon as you found the first weapon. Isn't this the whole distrust thing people are raving is so great about this game? It would be way more present in something like this than it is now where you can be assured virtually EVERYONE is bad and you won't even get a chance to talk before you're dead if you're dumb enough to actually try. Maybe this feature would lighten it too much... IDK, but lucky for us, and to quote the favorite phrase on these boards: it's alpha. Let's try it eh?

If you don't like nerfing anything bandit-wise, I disagree, but I can see your point and that's okay because I think plenty has been suggested simply to make cooperating more advantageous without necessarily ruining bandits' fun. Please note by bandits I mean actual bandits too, not herpaderps that just want to shoot people to ruin their day.

I stopped reading your entire post after the first line, because you didn't read the thread. I've already advocated group mechanics here and it's something Rocket's already advocated. What most of the posters here are trying to convey is some sort of punishment, pyschological effect, or some sort of other debilitation for players who indiscriminately kill other players. I'm for none of these things. I 'am' for more weight being added to the death of a player, so that taking a life ( and losing yours ) is a much more harsh reality on you as the player.

Before you interject into a conversation, please, do the rest of us a courtesy and at least read the thread. Once you've done that, I'll do you the courtesy of responding to your points. I may not be a huge fan of Skyter's, but at least he reads the thread and responds appropriately.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Cerven

[FalafelCopter 20]

Okay, so I think enough has been said to get a pretty good read on the two opposing sides here and what they want and don't want. I want to take a whack at this from a game design perspective. I'm not a game designer but I try to read everything I can and I feel like I have an okay grasp of it.

Some small points before I get started.

1. I get that this isn't supposed to be a "game" in the sense that it's very different from other games. However, if you get down to the basic definition of a game, that is, a set of rules that govern interactions with each other in a competitive scenario, then it still very much counts. An anti-game is still a game the same way an anti-hero is still a hero. That is, the anti refers to going about the same thing in a different way or for different reasons rather than doing a completely different thing.

2. Rocket may SAY that he's just an architect and he wants to see what players do in the world, and that the players should create the game. However, that's completely impossible. Why? Because human behavior is and has always been malleable. Tiny changes to game mechanics have massive reverberating effects on the behavior of players. Even if Rocket does not know it or do it intentionally, he is dictating a playstyle to his user base through the elements of his game. I would argue that almost all of the alleged problems with the community discussed in this thread are directly traceable to game mechanics.

What this means is that a request to modify mechanics in order to modify player behavior is entirely reasonable because every single change in mechanics rocket has ever made or will make will have the effect of modifying player behavior. Even if rocket says he has no opinion on what kinds of interactions players have, he does. He wants banditry to happen and we know it because he hasn't removed friendly fire. He wants teamwork to happen and we know this because we can't give ourselves blood transfusions. What's really important are these three questions: What kind of player interactions do we want this game to have? How often do we want specific interactions to take place? And what mechanical changes would need to take place to suit the first two questions?

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, lets take a look at what the two factions seem to want:

The bandits want a world that feels as authentic as possible. Notice that I said authentic and not realistic. This is really important. Dayz is not even remotely realistic. There are realistic arma2 mods and they're incredibly boring. You have police running around "arresting" people who "break rules" and other people who are working dull jobs as a game while escaping from their real life dull jobs. In a sense, DayZ is exactly as unrealistic as any arena fps game, or more importantly, as minecraft. Minecraft is actually an incredibly similar game to DayZ. It's quite possibly the closest comparison possible in modern gaming! In both DayZ and Minecraft here are no enforced goals other than survival, it's very easy to die, and the main thrust of pve content is simply to gather supplies in order to survive longer and then screw around. The way DayZ and MC differ is that DayZ feels incredibly authentic and real. Everything about the way the world looks and sounds and acts makes it easy to suspend disbelief and feel like the world might be real. That's authenticity. Think about the difference between modern warfare and team fortress. They're mechanically very similar, but modern warfare is more authentic.

The bandits (At least the ones we should be listening to) are worried that if Rocket listens to the people in this thread, the game will lose some or a lot of that authenticity. Of course some want the opportunity to be as trollish as possible, but I think a lot of them are really enjoying the immersion a game with very few rules can bring. They like to be deep into the role play perspective of an individual surviving as well as they can in a cruel and broken world and succumbing to the need to revert to a predator and prey mentality. A lot of the suggestions put forth in this thread so far have been very "gamey", in that they feel more like video game rules imposed from outside of the game world, rather than an aspect of the game world itself. The bandit skins did not feel authentic because in real life (and in most games!) our actions do not magically change our clothes for us. The mechanic put forth earlier in this thread where a letter is inscribed in one's forehead does not feel authentic because that situation would be the least of a bandit's worries in real life. A captured bandit would be happy to escape a failed attempt at banditry with their lives intact, especially if their only punishment were a small easily hidden scar.

The survivors also want a world as authentic as possible! To a survivor, the way PVP takes place in this game is absolutely immersion breakingly antisocial. Real life humans would not act the way they are currently acting in any real life cataclysm , rules or no rules. Not only are we just not wired to act that way, but a world of danger and scarcity simply wouldn't allow it to occur! Why? Banditry (as understood in this game) is incredibly dangerous and resource intensive. Think about how much high caliber sniper ammo that a real life individual would be able to gather in a zombie apocalypse, Now imagine you're an entirely sociopathic individual who happens to have a sniper rifle. Do you go into Cherno (a place packed with the highest concentrations of zeds around) and shoot all the other humans in the area, thus attracting the crowd of the undead to your sniper perch? That sniper is now in mortal danger from both the zeds and any angry survivors who want to fight back. Even if he manages it, he's either going to run out of ammunition or be killed, making the problem take care of itself. The only reason it happens in game the way it does is because ammo is absurdly plentiful, and our lives mean absolutely nothing, because we will immediately respawn. Don't get me wrong, people would still kill other humans in a real zombie apocalypse, but they would do it rarely and carefully. No one would ever kill someone who had no food/weapons/supplies with a high powered rifle in a zombie apocalypse for fear of wasting precious ammunition, being killed by their prey, or being killed by the zeds the astonishingly loud noise would surely attract. The few who might do that would quickly die.

A real life bandit encounter would probably more closely resemble a real life mugging, where the prey is threatened at gunpoint, disarmed, robbed, and only generally killed if the victim fights back. Even then, they would be killed quietly with a knife, but more likely they would just be left to fend for themselves in the wasteland. (It should be noted that this closely resembles the typical encounter with a pirate in Eve, a VERY successful MMO.) This is safer and more efficient for the bandit, and allows them some degree of rationalization that they aren't an evil person. (Such rationalizations are very helpful in keeping one's resolve, and most villains in fiction make them. Even Hannibal Lecter though he was performing a selfless service for society.) Furthermore, leaving victims alive means that the bandit may run into him again and be able rob him for a second batch of freshly looted things! In a worst case scenario, the bandit would eat them. Queue the "WE ARE THE UNDEAD!" philosophical moment that comes up often in zombie stories.

Essentially, what we have in this topic is a conflict of authenticity. The most important question, I think, is this: Is it possible to modify the game so as to improve the authenticity for the survivors without harming the authenticity for the bandits? I think that such a thing is possible, although I worry it might be beyond the scope of a single developer like Rocket to implement. I think though, he is likely to make the attempt as the project moves forward, because it will become a commercially funded project that will need a large enough playerbase to support it. Our job as alpha testers is to try and work together to come up with solutions that satisfy as many of us as possible, not to bicker pointlessly among each other and call each other names. Are we mature enough to accomplish that and ensure this potential game we all love is as amazing and genre defining, even genre creating, as we know it can be? I hope so!

That said, I'm not sure what exactly the mechanical change would look like. I think the idea put forth earlier that if survivors are killed and not looted that our items will remain when we respawn is a start, as it wouldn't hurt the immersion for the bandits in any way. (They wouldn't even see a difference, as they would be looting the most dangerous survivors anyway.) However, it would take a bit of the sting out of being pointlessly and randomly sniped in cherno. Of course, the mechanic would be gamed horribly, with people combat logging to make looting impossible, so the game would need to be modified further to make it actually function, but I think it's going in the right direction.

What do you think?

-edit-

Another aspect of that particular idea is that it would offer antsy survivor groups a middle ground between being friendly with a stranger and screwing them over. You could kill someone who makes you nervous and be sure that you're safe while knowing that you haven't screwed the player over entirely.

Edited July 24, 2012 by FalafelCopter

[rdubs 5]

I think all the DB's who are camp sniping other players just because they're bored are going to give you a TLDR; U MAD BRO? LOLZ

But most of the people who are disappointed in the way the game has devolved from how it first was, will read it in full. I know I did.

You have valid points no doubt but I think there is one key thing being left out from what you said. You use the term "Bandits" to refer to people who like to PVP. But the key issue I think most people have is that there are really two kinds of PVP'ers: Those who legitimately think hunting other players to get their gear is the best way to role play the apocalypse, and those who like to kill other players because they're bored and it's more fun to grief other players than it is to actually pretend to survive. I have no problem with the former, although I do think it exists far more in the game (obviously) than it would if those same people were faced with that situation "IRL." It's the douchebags who try to kill an unarmed player running away from them, who I think are the problem. So I think the key is to find some method which does not penalize the "legitimate" bandits but does discourage the "i'm-bored-so-more-fun-to-grief" players. Again just look at how people interacted at the beginning of this game to how they do now. As the previous poster noted, people were actually held up and told to drop your gear "back in the day." Now in the game that would never happen, with everyone KoS'ing everyone.

One way to fix this would be, your $30 buys you one life. If you die, you have the buy the game all over again. Some have noticed that there is no down-side for being a DB and dying, which enables DB behavior. If you had to play like your life depended on it, like when people first started playing the mod, you'd see it like it was, with a lot more cooperation. You'd still have people willing to risk their $30 just for the sadistic pleasure of costing other people their $30, but those people would be a lot rarer since I'd be willing to bet "good" players would form clans just to hunt any fucktards like that.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Rdubs

[SoloSmith 9]

I honestly have no idea how people can defend KoS so blindly. There are DOZENS of FPS games where you can shoot everyone at will, whenever you want. DayZ was not designed to be a frag game, so why bother doing it every time?

You get a few people snipe a newbie, that newbie then becomes anti-community, resorting to the same tactics as the idiots before. I love DayZ, it's a genuinely great idea but like the OP, I feel the player base ruins it. What really confuses me is the lack of server ideas. Why are there no servers catered towards more light RP? Or servers that actually host regular admins?

SAMP is another great mod that comes to mind, another ruined by the playerbase. But find the right server, with the right admins and rules, and it was a blast. Why can't that be done here?

TLDR: Want to KoS? Go play one of the other hundred MMOFPS titles.

[Huuwap 25]

Why TLDR such a short post?

Get some friends, find a mumble server, play together. I really don't understand why that concept is so hard. Arma 2 in game communication is terrible as-is, it's not like you can circumvent the necessity of some external VOIP server, so just accept that you can't trust strangers and keep the folks in the mumble/teamspeak/ventrilo server with you close.

/end thread

[FalafelCopter 20]

/end thread

This is one of the most obnoxious and snide things an individual can do in a forum. Don't be like this guy.

[SoloSmith 9]

Why TLDR such a short post?

Get some friends, find a mumble server, play together. I really don't understand why that concept is so hard. Arma 2 in game communication is terrible as-is, it's not like you can circumvent the necessity of some external VOIP server, so just accept that you can't trust strangers and keep the folks in the mumble/teamspeak/ventrilo server with you close.

/end thread

Because the majority of people on these forums have the attention span of a retarded chimpanzee :D

Edited July 24, 2012 by SoloSmith

[Keurk 4]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/rage/grand/05810492.gif Edited July 24, 2012 by Keurk

[SmokeytheBear 8]

People keep saying this ( and I agree ), shit even Rocket has said this, but I have yet to hear one concrete suggestion beyond this that doesn't effectively ruin a particular facet of the game.

I stopped reading your entire post after the first line, because you didn't read the thread. I've already advocated group mechanics here and it's something Rocket's already advocated. What most of the posters here are trying to convey is some sort of punishment, pyschological effect, or some sort of other debilitation for players who indiscriminately kill other players. I'm for none of these things. I 'am' for more weight being added to the death of a player, so that taking a life ( and losing yours ) is a much more harsh reality on you as the player.

Before you interject into a conversation, please, do the rest of us a courtesy and at least read the thread. Once you've done that, I'll do you the courtesy of responding to your points. I may not be a huge fan of Skyter's, but at least he reads the thread and responds appropriately.

Haha that's pretty g... wait, are you actually serious? Unless you're being sarcastic or something I don't understand how that statement even applies at all. You said in regards to making some sort of added penalty for death that you have yet to hear one concrete suggestion beyond this that doesn't effectively ruin a particular facet of the game.

If you're attacking me for not reading your post about advocating group mechanics (advocating one concrete suggestion beyond this that doesn't effectively ruin a particular facet of the game), and then of course attacking me for remembering that it was you that said it in 15 pages of content, maybe you should remember that you said it yourself and not make stupid comments saying there's no suggestions other than harsher death penalties. Wtf man?

Regardless, I made a few points and suggestions and you ignored them completely didn't even bother to read all of it. Yeah I know they've already been mentioned. That was exactly the point. Plenty of things have already mentioned that have not received a single response. If you actually think these would break the game, why not explain why so you can actually contribute something to the thread other than you're indignant jackassery. I think it's full to the brim with that as it is.

Just for full effect, I'd like to add two things you said in a single post:

"I stopped reading your entire post after the first line[...] Before you interject into a conversation, please, do the rest of us a courtesy and at least read the thread."

Way to go dumbass.

Edited July 24, 2012 by SmokeytheBear

[twoinches 1]

My camp consists of 10+ tents with enough loot that even a clan couldn't haul it all away.

If I cant carry away everything I take everything out and put it under trees and such so you don't have it anymore.

I spend hours in this game never seeing another player, I spend it surviving and pillaging peoples tents for gear to keep my survival going. I have not died in a long time. maybe you should play the game differently?

[Cerven 80]

Haha that's pretty g... wait, are you actually serious? Unless you're being sarcastic or something I don't understand how that statement even applies at all. You said in regards to making some sort of added penalty for death that you have yet to hear one concrete suggestion beyond this that doesn't effectively ruin a particular facet of the game.

If you're attacking me for not reading your post about advocating group mechanics (advocating one concrete suggestion beyond this that doesn't effectively ruin a particular facet of the game), and then of course attacking me for remembering that it was you that said it in 15 pages of content, maybe you should remember that you said it yourself and not make stupid comments saying there's no suggestions other than harsher death penalties. Wtf man?

Regardless, I made a few points and suggestions and you ignored them completely didn't even bother to read all of it. Yeah I know they've already been mentioned. That was exactly the point. Plenty of things have already mentioned that have not received a single response. If you actually think these would break the game, why not explain why so you can actually contribute something to the thread other than you're indignant jackassery. I think it's full to the brim with that as it is.

Just for full effect, I'd like to add two things you said in a single post:

"I stopped reading your entire post after the first line[...] Before you interject into a conversation, please, do the rest of us a courtesy and at least read the thread."

Way to go dumbass.

First of all, name calling is childish and unnecessary. I asked you to read the thread before you interject yourself into a conversation. That's it. Your post certainly inferred to me that you hadn't, judging by how you replied to me and the fact that I had just advocated group mechanics in this very thread. I didn't call you a moron or anything else. That juvenile crap is for the schoolyard.. I'm going to assume you're over the age of 18 and that we can rise above name calling here every once in a while. You don't know me, and I don't know you. With that, I'm going to try to not make this personal, and I hope you'll rise to the occasion and do the same. Flaming back and forth will accomplish nothing here.

The funny thing is, even after I told you I stopped reading - I 'did' read you post and even respond to it. Group mechanics is something that practically everyone is on board with - I have yet to meet someone on either side of this debate that doesn't think more group mechanics would be a good thing.

My point that I've consistently made here is that the 'herp a derp' ( again, is this 'really' necessary? ) bandits you refer to have a legitimate right to continue playing the game the way they're playing it. Trying to determine when it's 'ok' to kill/murder/whatever you want to call it another player is subjective at best, and game breaking at worst. I'm fine with giving players incentives to group and to work together, but what I'm not for is punishing a particular play style because somebody wandered into Cherno, got his head blown off, and wants to come onto the forums to vent about it. That imminent danger is part of what makes this game great, and diminishing it would be a disservice to the game.

[xximrtwoixx 104]

After reading the majority of this thread there a few things that I feel need to be pointed out to both the stop KOS/Anti PVP crowd and the Realist End of Days crowd, lets face it the douches shooting newbs with a .50 don't read the forums....

1. This is alpha, and I don't mean it to be snide or to stop conversation. Consider the points below,

- This is a mod that is only a few months past initial release it has an obscene number of players that require many of the changes to focus on infrastructure and not content. This means the mod has run out of content (Building blocks) for players that have played for a significant amount of time. As it is a military sim the best content in the game revolves around shooting people so that’s what people now do to generate their own content.

- This entire concept is alpha, how many multiplayer games contain complete sandbox, persistence, perma death, open pvp, and realistic damage? There are no games like this because they generate too much emotion and frustration from players, the same reason there are a million threads and posts bitching about pvp and KOS now. This concept will not be for everyone, you will die and many of those deaths will result from pvp and in some cases there will be nothing you can do about it. Armed with only a pistol a good player is just as dangerous with a new spawn as a character that is months old. All of your play time doesn't mean shit if someone else gets the drop on you, you make a slight mistake, or your a victim of wrong place wrong time. I'm not saying quit, I'm just saying this is the game and that’s why its different from all the other crap out there.

- Because this concept is alpha your not only testing the "game" your testing the concept, Rocket wants you to quit. We are market research in action, when does it get to be too much to advocate a successful stand-alone game. Some people are past the point now, fine post about it but more importantly quit playing. All of this is tracked so they know how often players are playing how many new players are joining; you are a statistic that is being used to create the hardest standalone title a studio will allow to be released. If you want the game this way feeding off of tears is only going to increase the opposition to the end product you want.

- You have to turn to meta game, its alpha the grouping content is not included so you need to turn to the forums and voice chat clients instead. It’s not as clean as if everything were in game but that’s reality, eventually this stuff will be loaded into standalone or the mod, but for now deal with using meta game to meet friendlies. Bitch all you want that it is or is not realistic for KOS the "Game world" has dictated that KOS is the reality. Apparently armed total strangers meeting other armed or trying to be armed total strangers is a recipe for murder. There are enough people complaining I'm sure if you all grouped up you could easily take over a server.

- It is a sandbox, this means there is *no* "way" the game is meant to be played. Its something that I see often readying posts, "These d bags don't play the way the game is meant to be played". In a 50 slot server there are 50 ways the game is meant to be played. Does this break immersion? Hell yea and it sucks sometimes too. More content will be added at some point but the sandbox game mode is part of why the game concept is so great. Its so much better than being ram rodded the same recycled crap or having to grind through hours of pointless crap to get to a certain point where you can "Play" the game. You and every other pixelated meat bag are exactly the same and have exactly the same opportunities as soon as you spawn. Its your job as a player to find enjoyment in game, and remember good o'l Sam Colt is there to make sure we're all equal. (Outside of hackers..... but like I said its alpha....)

In closing people need to realize why it took humanity thousands of years to progress beyond small tribal societies, its fucking hard. Society can't be built in a day and people won't be easy to trust, choosing to go against the grain and refrain from becoming one of the monsters that now infest the land is part of the struggle your character(s) should go through. If you can avoid it and all the bonuses that come from throwing away your connections to society and humanity then good for you, I applaud you. You are in an elite group, and I hope I can find the safe haven you help construct. The knowledge that you’re not some degenerate scum bag is your reward, not much I know but in reality that’s really all you'd get, would probably help you sleep.

And to all the Bandits/KOS people think back to the first time you got hunted down, for me it was the second time I played, I walked out of house and someone opened up with a mac on me. I ran back in and tried to talk to him in direct with no response, after 15 minutes I finally left and he was still there. After the brass settled I was dead and I'm pretty sure he was on his way, but a small part of me died right then. Think back to the first time you were murdered and know that’s how a lot of these new players feel, they may be gone in a month but it’s not really doing any good to try and force them out. It will only give a studio more ammo that the game should be pussified for a mass market

Edited July 24, 2012 by xXI Mr Two IXx

[SmokeytheBear 8]

First of all, name calling is childish and unnecessary. I asked you to read the thread before you interject yourself into a conversation. That's it. Your post certainly inferred to me that you hadn't, judging by how you replied to me and the fact that I had just advocated group mechanics in this very thread. I didn't call you a moron or anything else. That juvenile crap is for the schoolyard.. I'm going to assume you're over the age of 18 and that we can rise above name calling here every once in a while. You don't know me, and I don't know you. With that, I'm going to try to not make this personal, and I hope you'll rise to the occasion and do the same. Flaming back and forth will accomplish nothing here.

The funny thing is, even after I told you I stopped reading - I 'did' read you post and even respond to it. Group mechanics is something that practically everyone is on board with - I have yet to meet someone on either side of this debate that doesn't think more group mechanics would be a good thing.

My point that I've consistently made here is that the 'herp a derp' ( again, is this 'really' necessary? ) bandits you refer to have a legitimate right to continue playing the game the way they're playing it. Trying to determine when it's 'ok' to kill/murder/whatever you want to call it another player is subjective at best, and game breaking at worst. I'm fine with giving players incentives to group and to work together, but what I'm not for is punishing a particular play style because somebody wandered into Cherno, got his head blown off, and wants to come onto the forums to vent about it. That imminent danger is part of what makes this game great, and diminishing it would be a disservice to the game.

Fair enough. And it definitely doesn't help to go personal in any case so I apologize.

While in theory and principle I agree with you about not wanting to punish another play style, I see it inevitable to draw the line at a certain point. The nature of the game cannot accommodate superpowered, and highly incentivized random killing if it also wants to accommodate people that want coop to be an option. I will stand by and defend banditry as strongly as I defend cooperation, but I don't think that random murder is banditry at all. Deathmatch, shoot everybody, and leave-the higher-thinking-at-home games are everywhere, and none offer anywhere near the options that this game could. Part of it is just the setting but another large part is that the mechanics are simply set up to facilitate a style of play that's conflicting with the other styles that DayZ presents. It's already been driven into the ground for 15 pages so I won't list 'em all, but frequency of high-grade weapons and ammo, low penalties for death for established players yadda yadda are the things I'm talking about that simply provide too strong an advantage (given the near absence of any comparative, cooperative mechanics) for people that just want to run around and blast everybody.

I agree people that wander around carelessly, get killed, and rage shouldn't be the only people who dictate the game's development, but I also disagree with a "legitimate right" for what I called herp a derps to continue playing. It's not really about rights at all, it's about what best for the game and the community, and these kind of people, the methods they employ, and the people they're turning away, all don't speak well for what this game was marketed as and what Rocket has declared is his 'vision.'

That said, if it's really irreconcilable and no nerfs can be made without compromising the game, then let's just put in some buffs for the survivor crowd and see how it goes no? I'm not demanding one way or the other, just would really really prefer something to be done or I'm afraid I will lose interest and leave dissatisfied.

[frodevil 15]

pic related, it's OP

[skyter 299]

pic related, it's OP

Oh, you're clever.

Did I ever say I'd hesitate to put a couple rounds in anyone? It's just not my preferred play style. <_<

EDIT: Last special ed student I'm bothering to respond to.

Edited July 24, 2012 by skyter

[Grimlok (DayZ) 134]

Take it somewhere else. I dont need to hear how you wanna fix the game to make it easier for you to not die.

[frodevil 15]

"

Ammunition: More than enough to dissuade you from attacking

oh my god nice sig you autist ahhahahaha

"hey see that guy I can one shot with the gun I have? yeah i'd better not shoot him because he has lots of ammo" haha what the fuck is wrong with you

[Cerven 80]

Fair enough. And it definitely doesn't help to go personal in any case so I apologize.

While in theory and principle I agree with you about not wanting to punish another play style, I see it inevitable to draw the line at a certain point. The nature of the game cannot accommodate superpowered, and highly incentivized random killing if it also wants to accommodate people that want coop to be an option. I will stand by and defend banditry as strongly as I defend cooperation, but I don't think that random murder is banditry at all. Deathmatch, shoot everybody, and leave-the higher-thinking-at-home games are everywhere, and none offer anywhere near the options that this game could. Part of it is just the setting but another large part is that the mechanics are simply set up to facilitate a style of play that's conflicting with the other styles that DayZ presents. It's already been driven into the ground for 15 pages so I won't list 'em all, but frequency of high-grade weapons and ammo, low penalties for death for established players yadda yadda are the things I'm talking about that simply provide too strong an advantage (given the near absence of any comparative, cooperative mechanics) for people that just want to run around and blast everybody.

I agree people that wander around carelessly, get killed, and rage shouldn't be the only people who dictate the game's development, but I also disagree with a "legitimate right" for what I called herp a derps to continue playing. It's not really about rights at all, it's about what best for the game and the community, and these kind of people, the methods they employ, and the people they're turning away, all don't speak well for what this game was marketed as and what Rocket has declared is his 'vision.'

That said, if it's really irreconcilable and no nerfs can be made without compromising the game, then let's just put in some buffs for the survivor crowd and see how it goes no? I'm not demanding one way or the other, just would really really prefer something to be done or I'm afraid I will lose interest and leave dissatisfied.

In my opinion, it really 'is' irreconcilable. Not because I'm some sort of griefing asshat that prides himself on wasting fresh spawns with my AS50 ( I would think that'd be rather boring ) - but because I think that limiting that aspect of PvP is a slippery slope. Where's the line where we say 'This type of PvP is bad' vice 'This type of PvP is ok'? We could show a hundred people on these forums the same video of a player being killed, and get probably just as many opinions on the 'validity' of that kill.

I sympathize with the players who are tired of seeing the same old KoS mentality combined with the systemic mistrust that permeates the game in it's current state. I really do believe that most of these things WILL change, but I think there will always be an element of players in this game who prides itself on one thing and one thing only: killing other players.

You NEED that element to round this game out. That element is what is going to continue making going into a city scary, talking to another player intimidating, and ultimately keep you on the edge of your seat as you attempt to claw your way to survival in Chernarus in the weeks and months to come. Without it, the edge that this game puts so many players on will become dull and meaningless.

So like I said before, let's at least ATTEMPT incentives first, give players real, tangible in game benefits to working together, and see where it goes from there. I really don't think people WANT the cold blooded murderers to disappear from Chernarus - you just don't want EVERY survivor in Chernarus to be one.

[xximrtwoixx 104]

There are already tangible benefits to working in a group, we dont need gamification to encourage players ro group. Instead of making a million posts bitching about gettin pvp'd make one post looking for a group. There will b zero trust with a random encounter so you have to use meta to find a group.

[dirkdeadeye 8]

You're pleading for things incomprehensible to the enthusiasts of this game, who basically grief people in the guise of "survival". They're just going to call you a pussy. Because they basically see this game as an inconsequential way to bully people around that literally in most cases cannot defend themselves.

This game is a giant fucking troll. And you're asking the trolls who troll people not to troll you, and take your posts seriously.

You oughta expect a lot of bad noise and ignorance. They're fuckin' trolls.

[kirai 18]

I do agree with you that the thing of people killing eachothers have gone out of hand just because you can't trust anyone so to survive you have to kill. I usually try to not confront players if I don't really need to cause I am a friendly player and thinking of joining the rescue team but then, I suck at finding my ways through the woods so I think the poor bastard I should save is dead long before I get there or I get shot down. If I had team mates that wanted to join the cause to be able to get good gears and first aid things to be able to help others I would do it.

Oh one more thing though. I wouldnt want all people to be friendly though, it would take away the feeling of the game.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Secutor

[minimeister@btinternet.com 0]

The problem is that shooting a guy simply is the best option.

Dead guy = no trouble, no chance of backstabbing

If there were downsides to killing unarmed players/general survivors (not bandits) then the game might balance out a bit. I liked the look of the direct chat, communicating with others when I first saw the game but general banditry has turned me into a mean person.

Until Rocket comes up with an idea to dissuade people from banditry then it will happen forever...

Or until The War Z blows DayZ out of the water.

/ComeAtMeHaters!

[FalafelCopter 20]

There are already tangible benefits to working in a group, we dont need gamification to encourage players ro group. Instead of making a million posts bitching about gettin pvp'd make one post looking for a group. There will b zero trust with a random encounter so you have to use meta to find a group.

I don't think we necessarily need to "gamify" things too much in order to cut down on KoS behavior. There are many ways that player behavior can be modified in a way that feels authentic to the world. (In other worlds, that doesn't "feel" like a game mechanic.) For instance, the fact that you need another player to give you a blood transfusion is a game mechanic with the very specific goal of making people work together in groups more. Nobody objects to that mechanic even though it makes the game far more difficult for solo players because it feels like part of the world. In a way, that game mechanic is a step towards realism and not away from it, yet it has a very specific and intentional effect on player behavior.

I think something like this could be done to slightly nudge players towards a slightly more social or "realistic" experience without making the game feel more "gamey". Here's another example off the top of my head: Humans are intensely social creatures and almost all of us suffer very powerful negative effects from being alone for extended periods of time. What if there was a loneliness mechanic where our character was punished ever so slightly for spending extended periods by themselves? It would need to be very subtle so that lone wolf play wouldn't feel too punishing if that's your preferred playstyle, but tangible enough that you would think twice before gunning down the first survivor you run across. Maybe a subtle shiver in the aim? Having the character sometimes mutter to themselves and give away their poisition? (like the cough?) Maybe alcohol could be added as a way to temporarily combat loneliness, just like in real life! A mechanic like this would be a step TOWARDS realism, and would actually make the game more and not less difficult.

Complaints? Suggestions?

Edited July 25, 2012 by FalafelCopter

[gator (DayZ) 22]

The fundamental problem that starts debates like in this thread is a misconception of what this is. It is not a game. It is a mod for a military simulator never meant to be hugely popular. There is no replayability, end-game, balancing, etc. . . because it was never intended to be played as a game, it was intended to be a project of a modder screwing around with Arma.

[xximrtwoixx 104]

+1 its like u made the tldr version of my earlier post...

I think a loneliness meter would be gamey, as a player if you enjoy playing lone wolf your not lonely and if u dont you already are so you should already be trying to group up with players.

I dont think you can make any phyco analysis type of meters, the player should be experiancing all of those emotions already.

The trick is getting in content that can trigger emotional responses. Ie perma death, or as you cited blood bags. Rocket is already on this path he has referenced a skill system that will make players more valuable than only their loot.

Thing is people will still be in groups already large enough so they will still murder outsiders. Hopefully alt f4 can get fixed before bases or skills though cuz im looking forward to slave labor...