Post apacolyptic greifing simulator for D-bags

[Venatusio 1]

I am absolutely amazed that a hundred and fifteen people so far thought that the shower of whining and insults in the OP was worthy of their beans.

"Oh look, this guy is calling all of us twats - I think I'll press the 'like' button".

It boggles the mind.

And yet here you are posting - not the sharpest tool in the shed are we... lol

[Max Planck 7174]

And yet here you are posting - not the sharpest tool in the shed are we... lol

That would have been a great comeback had I been complaining about people posting here, but I didn't.

Now who's the sharpest tool?

Or just a tool maybe?

Edited July 28, 2012 by Max Planck

[FalafelCopter 20]

Day Z's economy at this point is gear and vehicles, all conflict centers around these objects or where players aquire these objects. I don't think this is that far off from EVE, its just that DayZ's currency is bullets. Also there are no safe zones in DayZ as there are in eve so the player base is more violent, because there is no option to be peacefull.

Technically there are no safe zones in eve either. You can be killed anywhere, as long as the pirates brought a large enough group to fight off the security ships. (At least, that's how I remember it.) You're right about one thing though, eve does have an option to be a peaceful player. There are enough tools in place for players to create the type of experience they want, whether it be an aggressive or a peaceful one. Eve is the textbook definition of a well balanced sandbox. There's a reason a game with combat as butt-terrible as Eve's is as successful as it is.

I don't think you understand or maybe don't appreciate what a sandbox is. In Day Z you can do whatever you want and other players can do whatever they want to help, oppose, or just shit on your experiance. Example: A group of players decides they want to become bandit overlords so they occupy all major cities and military locations. Anyone who tries to enter these locations is killed so as to keep the rest of the populace under equiped and starving. The bandits then send out groups to disburse food and notify players they can be fed at location x, now players amass at location x. The bandits now tell them they will do xyz or they won't be fed and instead will be killed. Now the bandits have a slave army.

Another example would be free side trading company, they are an in game merchant organiztion the emergent gameplay they generate can be complimented by other players trading or bandits trying to steal from them.

Wow, those both sound like really cool ideas... except, that's not what actually happens right now. There's no reason to enslave people or do fancy merchant stuff right now, because generally other players don't have things you need. The people doing the most pvping are the people who need the least things. I've never had someone come after me with a hatchet or a makarov, NEVER. I'd totally understand and be cool with it if a starving player killed me for weapons or supplies, but it's always some guy with NV goggles, a high powered rifle, and a gillie suit.

This is what a sandbox is about, allowing players to do what they want. Some player would rather know that they can do x here or y there and get z as a reward ie WOW than generate their own experiances in game.

I'd love if this game were a true sandbox and actually allowed for a range of different player experiences, but it's really not that right now. There simply isn't enough depth to allow for it. (With the exception of maybe the metagame doctors who server hop to save injured people. That's great and I think that's one of the most interesting bits of emergent gameplay the game supports. :D) It has the potential to become a sandbox if it's problems are ironed out, though.

As far as the status of the mod, the fact that you say its beta doesn't make your point more valid than another person who says its alpha. Really the *mod* is a poc (proof of concept) that was not designed to be alpha or beta, but an example that could convince studios that this type of game could be successful. I could make a mod and throw it on an ftp and have it be complete crap this doesn't mean its alpha nor does the fact that you can download it make it beta.

This was only being argued because people were saying "stop whining, its an alpha." Otherwise nobody would be arguing about what technical name to call the phase the game is in.

Societies are formed when people are willing to trade in an amount of their personal freedom for security. As we can all attest life in Dayz is violent, when players are willing to trade in their own freedom in game, ie your being told what to do and your actually doing it, then societies will form in game. This has already occured with many small groups and some rather large groups, (See FreeSide) Most early societys are ruled by the beast you know, ie a group or individual thats nastier than all the other nasties and thus can protect people who are to weak to deal with the other nasties.

The thing is, in real life, people get too scared or lonely to go off on their own, even if they have the skills to do it viably. For most people, if they were alone in a zombie apocalypse, they would be incredibly happy to see another human being because they would know the other human would be likely to be as lonely and scared as they are. In this game that's not the case for a myriad of reasons that have been discussed previously.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about what would "REALLY HAPPEN FOR REALZ" in a zombie apocalypse, but what really matters is that we both agree that current in game player behavior doesn't represent it. Someone would not walk into the most heavily zed infested town, climb up to a building, and randomly snipe other survivors and then not loot them. It wouldn't happen. More importantly, it doesn't matter whether it would happen or not. All that matters is what kind of gameplay it provides and whether it's good for the health of the game and the playerbase. The whole argument about realism only got brought up in the first place, again, because the bandit/pvp side people have been bringing it up incessantly to attack the people trying to make the game a little bit less deathmatchy.

I agree that this is and should be a simulation, that doesn't mean its reality. The goal is to generate authentic interactions and emotions from players, when this occurs players behave in an authentic way that is fairly standardized as each player has basically the same experiance in the simulation. Like it or not the behaviour that *is* authentic is kill every other SOB out there so they don't kill you and if you get there stuff its a bonus. As I said once players are willing to trade in their own freedoms in game then this will change, this could be through mechanics or gamification (This would suck) or it would be because players form societies. I think most players will quit before this point and another majority will refuse to realize that they are not the cream of the gentic crop in game (they suck) and will simply continue on their current path. Also group or society size will be limited to the number of players that are usefull. If your freeside you need alot of people if you want to make a sweet tent city with uber loot you only need 4 or 5. Because its a true sandbox players are also left with the choice of how ambitious they want to be.

Or they could do it through specializing people to the point where it's worthwhile to group up. Hey wait, that sounds familiar!

I do agree that specialization needs to be added to the game, Rocket has talked about adding this through a skill system so I'm sure its in the works. For not being alpha there is alot of testing of how to mold a concept into a game...

So, you seem for individual mechanics that facilitate social nonaggressive behavior, yet you seem against the idea of people asking for mechanics for that purpose. It's confusing to me.

Since you thought long and hard about it I guess I'll take your word for it? I also think you should follow your own advice, "Don't count on others sharing your views".

No one can say how a scenario would work IRL if it never happend, you can only look at the examples or scenarios that mostly resemble it. Throwing pop culture out the window and looking at historical examples of modern society collapsing or at examples prior to society existing should give us clues.

How did people live prior to society- ----------Small family/tribal groups --------------- Pretty close to DayZ

How did people act prior to society------------- Groups fought over territory and resources -------- Again pretty close to Day Z

How violent/shitty were people to each other before society- -----Pretty shitty thats why they gave up their freedom to form societies -----We're there people just aren't ready to give shit up yet...

How did people live when society collapsed- -------Small family/friend groups (Some sheep still do what the government says (See super dome)) -----Again pretty close

How did people act when society collapsed- ------People were so afraid and desperate they killed each other just 24 hours after Katrina---- Sounds like DayZ

How violent/shitty were people to each other after society collapsed-------- Look at the superdome, rape and murder with tons of bystanders. Look at the Horn of Africa now, we can be pretty nasty to each other.----Just like DayZ

None of those things are "just like" dayz, or even resemble what happens in it in anything but the most superficial of ways. >_>

[FalafelCopter 20]

Sailors dilemma, prisoners dilemma, Thief’s dilemma there are a lot of these. I think its true that any decision can be judged as fitting into one of the three categories, selfish, selfless, or Troll.

Other than how incredibly simplistic this viewpoint is, wouldn't troll be a subset of selfish?

I'm of the opinion that everything is zero sum in everything. I think most people play games with a healthy sense of rational self-interest and will almost always act to maximize their own interests. This is why people that want an action fix will always shoot at you even if they know it will mean their death, they are valuing their entertainment more than their characters life. Also who would want anything that respawns in .0001 seconds?

Thats why you need to modify the game so that it's within people's self interest to act in a variety of ways and not just the most obvious and simplistic ones. Players are lazy and they'll get themselves stuck in a boring rut unless the game subtly pushes them towards other things. If you just leave players to their own devices in a game where it's easier to ruin fun than to create it, then everyone will ruin each other's fun until nobody is enjoying themselves and everyone is bored. It's like how if you leave a bunch of lobsters in a pond, they will just sit there eating each other until there's one fat lobster that will starve. That type of game design isn't conducive to long term success. The trolls will chase out all the players who want a social experience and then they will just troll each other until they get bored.

I think your looking to far into societies development, a better comparison would be stone age tribes they existed in the same type of environment, forage and defend. I do understand what you mean though, without additional features/content that give a reason for large groups they won't form. I think that is the answer not gamification or nerfs that would lessen the authenticity of the game world. Also for your prolonged success you are much better off foraging in a group as defense can never be separated from an action when there is no safety.

It's just weird that you would use gamification as something that can even happen to a video game in the first place. This game is chock full of gameified mechanics. Temperature, hunger, thirst, none of them work the way they work in reality. They're tweaked to act in a way that's fun and engaging rather than realistic, and designed with specific goals for player behavior. Blood packs requiring another player is transparent attempt to get us to work together, but it doesn't feel like "gamification" because it fits well within the world. Any other mechanic that gets introduced should be as authentic as that, but you can force pretty much any rule and make it authentic somehow if you think hard enough.

Forage and defend are the basis of existence and I think the right place to start when adding features, as the mod grows so will the scope of what people or groups can accomplish and you will get what you want. I just don't want to see the environment or experience cheapened in the process. Creating the kind of content that will allow players to build back society against not only zombies but a community that has grown used to living in the state of nature is a great challenge and will take some time. All I can say is be a cave man for a while, find a tribe, post your ideas for rebuilding society or making places safer. This would be much more inline with the spirit of the mod than requesting nerfs or additional content to fix problems that need to be fixed at a much deeper level.

None of us want to see the experience cheapened, we want exactly the opposite. The experience feels cheap as it is. Also, wait hold on a second. You think that new mechanics should be introduced in order to allow players to rebuild society, yet you think we shouldn't be requesting new content? What?

[CLewis 31]

You are right, a fist fight does not compare, but it's all that I personally witnessed. The amount of shooting is unrealistic because it's a game with little repercussion for death other than lost time, but I can assure you that in times of crisis the morons often get itchy trigger fingers.

Some people were killed by gunfire in similar gas station disputes during that evacuation, but I didn't witness them. The accounts exist and some people died as a result.

Wouldn't the trigger happy be the first to get infected/eaten/killed by the"zombies", because they would engage them, not people after the "break-out"? I would think so.

Ps. Sorry to interupt a great debate. Keep it up!

Edited July 28, 2012 by CLewis

[FalafelCopter 20]

Wouldn't the trigger happy be the first to get infected/eaten/killed by the"zombies", because they would engage them, not people after the "break-out"? I would think so.

Ps. Sorry to interupt a great debate. Keep it up!

THIS. "I think my best option for survival is to run to where there's lots of horrible monsters that are killing everyone and are attracted to sound, and then make a ton of noise! Surely this will help somehow!"

[SmokeytheBear 8]

We can argue until we're blue in the face about what would "REALLY HAPPEN FOR REALZ" in a zombie apocalypse, but what really matters is that we both agree that current in game player behavior doesn't represent it. Someone would not walk into the most heavily zed infested town, climb up to a building, and randomly snipe other survivors and then not loot them. It wouldn't happen. More importantly, it doesn't matter whether it would happen or not. All that matters is what kind of gameplay it provides and whether it's good for the health of the game and the playerbase. The whole argument about realism only got brought up in the first place, again, because the bandit/pvp side people have been bringing it up incessantly to attack the people trying to make the game a little bit less deathmatchy.

Having complied with this fact probably could have reduced the thread to 5 pages.

Or they could do it through specializing people to the point where it's worthwhile to group up. Hey wait, that sounds familiar!

So, you seem for individual mechanics that facilitate social nonaggressive behavior, yet you seem against the idea of people asking for mechanics for that purpose.

I think stuff is getting lost in semantics. He's for adding things to the game like more items, more activities, more actual, real human examples of why two is better than one in the game, he just doesn't want things like a local bandit detector that sends off a siren on your computer whenever a murderer approaches, turning into a pink dildo when you kill somebody, or having a message come up and say "oh no! You're lonely and going insane!" and knock you unconscious.

I'm not particularly opposed to some of the "gamey" mechanics like safe zones, but if people have a problem with it then I see no downside to trying things like adding more activities and intrinsic group motivation first. If they don't solve the problem, then move on to gameification.

[FalafelCopter 20]

I just don't understand why loneliness is "gamification" and needing to drink every 10 minutes is "perfectly realistic." These are both basic, common, physiological needs. I can't think of any criteria that pain fits that loneliness doesn't, for instance. They're both invisible things that are represented only by a meter and by your character's movements and sounds. I get that you might not like the mechanic for gameplay reasons but the realism/authenticity argument is nonsense.

[sausagekingofchicago 4711]

Yeah, I was playing this morning trying to herd up all the new people just joining the game and I realized that I'm pretty much bored of DayZ. It really is just a ARMA deathmatch with all the good weapons taken away. If I wanted to play PvP, there's a million games out there that do it better than this one.

There would be no challenge or even paranoia if the pvp was removed from this game. Zombies are no threat.

If you guys don't want to deathmatch, stay out of hot spots. That's not hard to do.

[Yoko (DayZ) 20]

Do people really not know the differents between alpha and a fully done game. Its got bugs like this because its still in Alpha testing. so stop whining about all the issues and post in the bug reports about all the issues

[jonahcutter 51]

Once you realize how easy it is to deal with zeds, how easy it is to gather basic survival needs, and how easy it is to accumulate weapons and ammo, the mod rapidly falls apart. Its main focus of gameplay becomes "gearing up" (sort of like WoW), and the fear of death is almost non-existent because of being able to have multiple (if not dozens) of backup sets of gear stored in tents.

The mod starts out strong and intense and original. It just doesn't sustain it for very long, and rapidly devolves into a sorta-persistent-world, watered-down ArmA with zombie/survival window-dressing.

[FalafelCopter 20]

Do people really not know the differents between alpha and a fully done game. Its got bugs like this because its still in Alpha testing. so stop whining about all the issues and post in the bug reports about all the issues

One person's feedback is another person's whining. It's all useful. Stop trying to shut people down and let them get their opinion out. Rocket wants to hear the "whining" as well as the praise.

[SmokeytheBear 8]

We're animals regardless of whether or not we have excess and luxury.

We got there by being apex predators. We reign our animalistic instincts in through education, but that doesn't make them go away.

As much as I want to bypass this to keep the thread more focused, it's just too interesting and I can't. /sigh

How did we devise such "education" if we didn't have that instinct inside us somewhere from the beginning as well? Would we not need to have at least traces of "higher thought" to have conceived of such a thing? The crazy person doesn't think he crazy because everything makes sense to him and he can't fathom a world where it doesn't. Similarly if we were just base monsters than how could we ascend to anything more?

And oddly enough in this game, the true monsters and trolls that everyone complains about are the ones that actually do have luxuries and revert back to an animal state from boredom, whereas the scared nubs are trying to group up and seek shelter in numbers. the normal attitude for new players is not to grief, rape, and steal. Instead the "educated" group is doing this. If anything this is practically backwards from what you have proposed.

Do people really not know the differents between alpha and a fully done game. Its got bugs like this because its still in Alpha testing. so stop whining about all the issues and post in the bug reports about all the issues

Do people really not read the threads at all? Virtually no conversation has been centered around blaming bugs compared to debates on whether it would "really happen" or not, and gameification. You're embarrassing yourself.

I just don't understand why loneliness is "gamification" and needing to drink every 10 minutes is "perfectly realistic." These are both basic, common, physiological needs. I can't think of any criteria that pain fits that loneliness doesn't, for instance. They're both invisible things that are represented only by a meter and by your character's movements and sounds. I get that you might not like the mechanic for gameplay reasons but the realism/authenticity argument is nonsense.

No it really isn't the same. People deal with loneliness in wildly different ways and with huge differences in resilience. People all deal with dehydration the same way and it doesn't matter how you're made. You lose too much water and you die. Period. Saying that your vision should blur, you should run slow, hands shake, etc. from loneliness at a certain point being isolated is pushing it I think.

However, a psych profile for roleplaying ideas was proposed earlier and I really like that idea because you could have variations in these things. You could be Jeremiah Johnson and live for years without a problem in the wilderness, or the local sorority girl who goes nuts when she can't check her facebook every 3 minutes to hear what her friends are saying. Obvious exaggerations, so sandbox-purists please at least give it a thought. With a good system loneliness, aversion to killing, tendency to panic, or the exact opposites in any of those would not only change some of the problems we have, but also add some depth to the group dynamics and novelty contributions to replay value so people don't get as bored. Done poorly though, I can see why some would be worried.

Edited July 29, 2012 by SmokeytheBear

[pandadragonthing 11]

To that I say: You're exactly what's wrong with the game. You're forcing an entire community to play one specific style in a sandbox game or suffer because they don't. This game will die out soon after the newness is gone and people realize zombies are almost an after thought to people playing at this point.

So because this style of gameplay is not the one you like people shouldn't do it? Aren't you again "forcing an entire community to play one specific style in a sandbox game or suffer because they don't?" Get real.

[SmokeytheBear 8]

So because this style of gameplay is not the one you like people shouldn't do it? Aren't you again "forcing an entire community to play one specific style in a sandbox game or suffer because they don't?" Get real.

This is like defending slavery by saying that to deprive slavers of their chosen profession is as freedom-restricting and debasing as slavery itself. Aggressors don't get the same rights.

[pandadragonthing 11]

I have no idea how you managed to connect bandits from a game to the long gruesome past of slavery and the even longer road of recovery. Your post is insulting.

[FalafelCopter 20]

No it really isn't the same. People deal with loneliness in wildly different ways and with huge differences in resilience. People all deal with dehydration the same way and it doesn't matter how you're made. You lose too much water and you die. Period. Saying that your vision should blur, you should run slow, hands shake, etc. from loneliness at a certain point being isolated is pushing it I think.

People deal with temperature in vastly different ways. There are guys who can sit in the snow naked and be perfectly fine, and people who get hypothermia in a little bit of rain. Does that mean we shouldn't use temperature in a mechanic? People have different metabolisms and differ in the time they can go without eating, does that mean we shouldn't use hunger in a mechanic? People differ in how long they can run, does that mean everyone in the game should walk? People differ in how much they can withstand pain, does that mean we shouldn't use a pain mechanic? People are vastly different from one another in tons of ways, but that rarely stops game developers from using these traits as game mechanics. I would say that people are probably more similar to each other in how well they deal with loneliness than in how they deal with endurance sprinting.

However, a psych profile for roleplaying ideas was proposed earlier and I really like that idea because you could have variations in these things. You could be Jeremiah Johnson and live for years without a problem in the wilderness, or the local sorority girl who goes nuts when she can't check her facebook every 3 minutes to hear what her friends are saying. Obvious exaggerations, so sandbox-purists please at least give it a thought. With a good system loneliness, aversion to killing, tendency to panic, or the exact opposites in any of those would not only change some of the problems we have, but also add some depth to the group dynamics and novelty contributions to replay value so people don't get as bored. Done poorly though, I can see why some would be worried.

Okay, so you agree that a loneliness mechanic is an okay idea as long as it's fully thought out and other things change to make it work? Great! We agree then. I never said my ideas for how the mechanic could work are the only ideas there could be, I just threw out some random ideas as they came to my head. Of course Rocket would be able to do a far better job with it than my random musings. I'm only brainstorming general directions solutions can come from, not fully fleshed out game mechanics that need to be implemented perfectly or ignored.

[CLewis 31]

Deleted my own post. Was kind of an ass, so sorry if someone read it and was offended.

Edited July 29, 2012 by CLewis

[Astronomer (DayZ) 16]

So because this style of gameplay is not the one you like people shouldn't do it? Aren't you again "forcing an entire community to play one specific style in a sandbox game or suffer because they don't?" Get real.

This is like defending slavery by saying that to deprive slavers of their chosen profession is as freedom-restricting and debasing as slavery itself. Aggressors don't get the same rights.

I have no idea how you managed to connect bandits from a game to the long gruesome past of slavery and the even longer road of recovery. Your post is insulting.

I don't necessarily agree with this poster, but I fail to see how:

1) The logical comparison he made is not obvious.

2) Merely mentioning the logic behind slavery laws is offensive? It is, for the point he is trying to make, a valid comparison.

Way to not address what he said, and instead get offended on the behalf of people in history at the mere mention of an evil practise. If anything his post condemns slavery and explains why laws against it must exist, despite being a 'restriction of freedom'. His post is only offensive if you go out of your way to find simple logical comparisons offensive. It also had nothing to do with 'the past of slavery' or 'the even longer road to recovery'. It had to do with a practise, which actually still exists in the world, contrary to the apparent bubble in which you live where American history is the history of the world.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Astronomer

[pandadragonthing 11]

I don't necessarily agree with this poster, but I fail to see how:

1) The logical comparison he made is not obvious.

2) Merely mentioning the logic behind slavery laws is offensive? It is, for the point he is trying to make, a valid comparison.

Way to not address what he said, and instead get offended on the behalf of people in history at the mere mention of an evil practise. If anything his post condemns slavery and explains why laws against it must exist, despite being a 'restriction of freedom'. His post is only offensive if you go out of your way to find simple logical comparisons offensive. It also had nothing to do with 'the past of slavery' or 'the even longer road to recovery'. It had to do with a practise, which actually still exists in the world, contrary to the apparent bubble in which you live where American history is the history of the world.

I still find it illogical to hold slavery just as horrible as bandits on a game, and can make a comparison on the two things.

[Astronomer (DayZ) 16]

I still find it illogical to hold slavery just as horrible as bandits on a game, and can make a comparison on the two things.

WHAT?!?! He said no such thing. Do you think that just because they are mentioned in the same post, he is directly comparing them as 'equally bad'?!

Let's walk through this and think about it, instead of posting mindless knee-jerk reactions:

Originally someone said (perhaps the OP) that mindless deathmatching (kill on sight) as it exists now prevents most other playstyles (any meaningful survivor cooperation, non-kill on sight), because it means certain and instant death in most cases. Someone then in response said "yeh, but you can't restrict it because then you're doing the same thing: preventing other people from playing the way they see fit".

He was comparing the reasoning this argument with one for slavery:

Argument 1) You can't restrict playstyle X even if it prevents others from playing in more deep, meaningful and complex ways, because that's a restriction of player freedom.

Argument 2) You can't restrict slavery, even though it is an immoral and backwards practise that causes misery, because that's a restriction of the freedom of slave owners.

The key point is that restricting or making less 'worthwhile' the practise of instantly killing anyone you see who isn't your buddy on teamspeak, is a necessary restriction of player freedom if deeper, more meaningful gameplay is to emerge. Just as banning slavery is a necessary restriction of human freedom if a happier, more enlightened society is to emerge. PLEASE tell me you see this now.

[FalafelCopter 20]

WHAT?!?! He said no such thing. Do you think that just because they are mentioned in the same post, he is directly comparing them as 'equally bad'?!

Let's walk through this and think about it, instead of posting mindless knee-jerk reactions:

Originally someone said (perhaps the OP) that mindless deathmatching (kill on sight) as it exists now prevents most other playstyles (any meaningful survivor cooperation, non-kill on sight), because it means certain and instant death in most cases. Someone then in response said "yeh, but you can't restrict it because then you're doing the same thing: preventing other people from playing the way they see fit".

He was comparing the reasoning this argument with one for slavery:

Argument 1) You can't restrict playstyle X even if it prevents others from playing in more deep, meaningful and complex ways, because that's a restriction of player freedom.

Argument 2) You can't restrict slavery, even though it is an immoral and backwards practise that causes misery, because that's a restriction of the freedom of slave owners.

The key point is that restricting or making less 'worthwhile' the practise of instantly killing anyone you see who isn't your buddy on teamspeak, is a necessary restriction of player freedom if deeper, more meaningful gameplay is to emerge. Just as banning slavery is a necessary restriction of human freedom if a happier, more enlightened society is to emerge. PLEASE tell me you see this now.

Or to put it in another way: You have to take away a couple of people's freedoms or else they will use their freedoms to take away all of everyone else's freedoms, which results in a net loss of freedoms overall. (That actually hurt to type.)

[pandadragonthing 11]

WHAT?!?! He said no such thing. Do you think that just because they are mentioned in the same post, he is directly comparing them as 'equally bad'?!

Let's walk through this and think about it, instead of posting mindless knee-jerk reactions:

Originally someone said (perhaps the OP) that mindless deathmatching (kill on sight) as it exists now prevents most other playstyles (any meaningful survivor cooperation, non-kill on sight), because it means certain and instant death in most cases. Someone then in response said "yeh, but you can't restrict it because then you're doing the same thing: preventing other people from playing the way they see fit".

He was comparing the reasoning this argument with one for slavery:

Argument 1) You can't restrict playstyle X even if it prevents others from playing in more deep, meaningful and complex ways, because that's a restriction of player freedom.

Argument 2) You can't restrict slavery, even though it is an immoral and backwards practise that causes misery, because that's a restriction of the freedom of slave owners.

The key point is that restricting or making less 'worthwhile' the practise of instantly killing anyone you see who isn't your buddy on teamspeak, is a necessary restriction of player freedom if deeper, more meaningful gameplay is to emerge. Just as banning slavery is a necessary restriction of human freedom if a happier, more enlightened society is to emerge. PLEASE tell me you see this now.

Okay listen, this is going far off topic but I'll take my stand. Your point is valid and logical and I can now see it in the other guys post. Let's end this crap. And i'm sorry...

On Topic:

To be honest, you guys are idiots if you think its right to force other plays to play the same play style as you, even if its the most moral and "correct", in your opinion, way to play. Your no better than the bandits who force you to play they way they do, which, lets not beat around the bush here, is not what they even do. They play the game how they want to play it and they don't tell anyone else how to play it or try to enforce rules to play their way. What it comes down to is that just a bunch of people who are generally killed a lot because they were foolish in their attempts to meet another survivor or were running through Elektro in the middle of night holding on to a flare raging because they lost their gear due to stupidity( and won't admit it ). It's completely your choice to choose to help someone and to say some other gamer from anywhere on the world influences your decision is complete crap.

Also there are those players who will be your friends and then turn their backs on you, the example the OP posted, well that's just another variable to the epicness of this game and its realism. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. In reality, if their was a zombie apocalypse, this would be the reality of it... people killing each other for food or general fun, its the apocalypse, we're all gonna die anyways.

[CLewis 31]

Okay listen, this is going far off topic but I'll take my stand. Your point is valid and logical and I can now see it in the other guys post. Let's end this crap. And i'm sorry...

On Topic:

To be honest, you guys are idiots if you think its right to force other plays to play the same play style as you, even if its the most moral and "correct", in your opinion, way to play. Your no better than the bandits who force you to play they way they do, which, lets not beat around the bush here, is not what they even do. They play the game how they want to play it and they don't tell anyone else how to play it or try to enforce rules to play their way. What it comes down to is that just a bunch of people who are generally killed a lot because they were foolish in their attempts to meet another survivor or were running through Elektro in the middle of night holding on to a flare raging because they lost their gear due to stupidity( and won't admit it ). It's completely your choice to choose to help someone and to say some other gamer from anywhere on the world influences your decision is complete crap.

Also there are those players who will be your friends and then turn their backs on you, the example the OP posted, well that's just another variable to the epicness of this game and its realism. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. In reality, if their was a zombie apocalypse, this would be the reality of it... people killing each other for food or general fun, its the apocalypse, we're all gonna die anyways.

I litterally can't wait for the answer to this post...

[Dasein808 12]

x

Edited March 28, 2019 by Dasein808