A serious question for the PvP-phobes

[andyfuji 15]

I used to play on TAW's Wasteland Sandbox server, and it was a helluva lot funner. Strangely the game mechanics were near identical to DayZ; weapons and supplies are strew about the map and such. But even though no one was explicitly told to, people teamed up and worked together. People built towns and forts from scavenged materials, and those players who decided to murder and rob others were deemed outcasts. Hell, there were often clear cut factions and most of the time passing a lone rival on the road didn't lead to someone getting shot.

DayZ, it seems to me, has brought in the bandits on it's own accord. Everyone I know who regularly played Arma before DayZ came shuns the mod for the rampant deathmatching. Once everyone jumped on the bandwagon and bought Arma solely for DayZ, in came the riff-raff and their jumpy trigger fingers.

I honestly don't think it's the fault of DayZ or it's developers. People just come in with the mindset that everything that moves is something that absolutely positively needs to die. Unhook your IV-drips full of Pop Rocks and calm the fuck down.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Andyfuji

[Andrej Dudev 50]

My argument has been, it's a PvP sandbox game

But this isn't a PvP sandbox game, I don't see any reference to being a PvP oriented sandbox survival game in http://dayzmod.com/

Yet after all my posts you retort by claiming that it's me that's "pushing my ideals onto others". Me that wants to impose some sort of restraint on the play style of others. What? Are you meta troll?

this, read below.

your play style is the law of the land right now because it's so prevalent. Attempting anything else most assuredly ends in a swift death. If one play style makes other play styles un-playable, by process of elimination and on the current game model; yes you're forcing people to play your way, whether intentional or not.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Andrej Dudev

[ivan keska 39]

From the start I avoided killing and even returning fire, if I can get away without killing you I will. Granted I'm a mugger but even then I'll just break your legs leave you will little blood and a bit of morphine somewhere near by or knock you out with a smoke grenade ant pick pocket your back pack, because it is more interesting that way.

Plus just maybe if I run into a noob (one that doesn't look noobish, because noobs are the future), I show them not everyone is both weak and a coward

[beavaroo 90]

...Forget the Shakespearian monologues of how one particular death was 'unfair' in your mind and cut to the chase.

What do YOU think should be done about it?

There is nothing that CAN be done about it.

Everyone should either harden-the-fuck-up or get-the fuck-gone! ~ (From one of Hamlet's lesser known soliloquies)

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

But this isn't a PvP sandbox game, I don't see any reference to being a PvP oriented sandbox survival game in http://dayzmod.com/

Andrej, could you please go play with your lego while the big boys and girls have a discussion. I'll buy you some ice cream when we're done okay?

Oh by the way:

http://dayzmod.com/f..._160#entry32219

Some semblance of server persistence would actually draw in a community. 20 - 100 player servers that you'll play on maybe once and then hop off to one of the other hundreds of servers means you're playing with totally random people all the time. There's no sense of community bond at all.

I've met and made friends with plenty of people in dayz by using my mic. It's mostly when I'm a fresh spawn but I've had gentlemans agreements higher up the map too. With the exception of one (I got his steam name), I will never see those people again.

The problem with persistent communities though, is you will not stop the killing. You people don't seem to understand how humans work. You will actually regulate the server and form groups of good and bad guys and there will be organized wars over certain zones of the map by the various groups of a server. You'll have people acting as a sort of police and perhaps completely random killing will die down a little until one group becomes "all powerful" and can do whatever they want.

Those bandits you despise will be the overlords of you carbears and while you all huddle in Cherno fire station singing "kumbaya my lord". The bandit rabble will be organized into some 30+ player army which will completely own all of the airfields and go on raids to steal all of your things -- They'll break apart and fight each other in power struggles too.

But if you think you're going to settle down and start a "little house on the prairie" style sanctuary which will be super safe forever then you're sorely mistaken. Genghis Khan is going to ride in with his fucking hoard and pillage you.

The countries in the world were formed via wars of aggression / land snatching / eating weaker tribes or countries. Don't think your countries were formed by being nice friendly people.

Edited July 20, 2012 by itputsthelotion

[Andrej Dudev 50]

Thanks for the link so I'm able to quote rocket

I will put in the features required for you to either destroy this world into mindless PVP, or create something else.

So I suppose you want this mod to become a mindless PvP, now I understand.

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

Thanks for the link so I'm able to quote rocket

So I suppose you want this mod to become a mindless PvP, now I understand.

All I ask is that users are given the choice and freedom to do as they please. It would seem rocket appreciates that.

That's what I stated before. Any artificial "limitation" on PvP is lame. Start a Dayz police force if you want? I'm all for it man -- Go make a thread in the survivor section "Andrej's Police squad -- Call us for help!". Kickass.

But don't be forcing every player in the game to play "your" way via some ridiculous obstructive artificial game limitation. Force me in game to play your way, fine -- That's the game, as long as you're not exploiting some bug or hack to do it. Stop needing the game to hold your hand to fix your problems.

You're the sort of person that requires the sign "warning, may contain nuts" on the side of a packet of peanuts. Literally the post before last you linked the website and demanded to know where it said the game was PvP... REALLY? I still believe you're meta trolling me.

Edited July 20, 2012 by itputsthelotion

[hunterkilla 67]

From the start I avoided killing and even returning fire, if I can get away without killing you I will. Granted I'm a mugger but even then I'll just break your legs leave you will little blood and a bit of morphine somewhere near by or knock you out with a smoke grenade ant pick pocket your back pack, because it is more interesting that way.

Plus just maybe if I run into a noob (one that doesn't look noobish, because noobs are the future), I show them not everyone is both weak and a coward

You sir can mug me anytime. its player like this that give bandits a good name and also makes the game so much more interesting, im tempted to try this style of gameplay as it adds so much more rather than just bang bang

[Andrej Dudev 50]

I'm against any form of limitations, this has to be clear, but one thing is sniping from a hill because is fun and one thing is doing pvp.

Killing for "the lulz, because I'm pro" and acting like this is some sort of mindless action tacticool shooter is what is ruining the overall experience and is against the idea of this mod.

I understand that at the moment DayZ lacks in terms of contents but there must be something better to do with the spare time than transforming it in a mindless pvp game.

[hyperpengysan@gmail.com 2]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Because its important.

There are two types of bandits. These are people who want to roleplay The Bandit. They want to be The Bandit and they want to live The Bandit lifestyle in game. These people might select to rob a survivour instead of gunning him down. Kinda like in real life. These players, if given the chance, will properly add to the game world through their notoriety. It should be an important decision to go bandit, one that alters your SURVIVAL gameplay.

Then there are griefers. These are people who figure, "this survival shtick is alright, but what I'd rather be doing is playing some Battlefield," or just want to shit all over another person's day so they can get off. Whatever the reason, they're not here to roleplay The Bandit and live out their bandit dreams, they're just here to deathmatch. Their immediate, knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of weakening PvP, is torrents of crying and insults and "stop trying to keep me from playing the game the way I want."

Anything we can do to de-incenticize, maybe even outright make the game NOT FUN for griefers is a GOOD THING. If griefers QUIT, as much as they cry about it on the forums, it is a GOOD THING. There is NEVER a reason to maintain, or improve gameplay for griefers.

Because here's the thing. Day Z is a survival semi-game, semi-simulation. The impetuous is survival. You should always be thinking about survival. Even when you're playing a bandit, you should be thinking about survival. When you're sitting on a hilltop, 600m out of Cherno, sniping people, how are you thinking about survival at all? How the fuck are you going to even pick up the guy's beans that you would have wanted if you had been thinking about survival? When played properly, playing Day Z automatically implies a degree of roleplaying. Your exploits in Day Z can be chronicled into a story, and that story should look nothing like my prior Battlefield 3 log ( Kills: 9. Headshots: 7. Longest distance headshot: 634m. Best weapon: M98B. Deaths: 1. K/D ratio: 900%. ). So keep Day Z as a game for the 'roleplayers,' and the FPS twitchers go back to their FPS games.

[soapmak3r 677]

Yeah...F**k griefers. The game should be made a living hell for them.

You know what the sad thing is, if you removed sniper rifles from the game, all of these 'bravery of being out of range' folks would leave instantly because they don't have the balls to have a face to face confrontation with anyone. Cowards, the lot of them.

Edited July 20, 2012 by soapmak3r

[Robert_merello 2]

I'm going to try my best not to sound like I'm trolling, since this is entirely serious and not meant to provoke a reaction.

We see lots of threads each day such as this one:-

http://dayzmod.com/f...tor-for-d-bags/

They're all in a similar vein and it's basically always the same basic story.

Let me tell it for you is succinctly as possible, it has 3 parts.

1. I was playing dayz and I encountered another player.

2. This other player killed me.

3. I didn't like being killed.

That's it.

That's all there is to the story. Every. Single. Time.

There's usually quite a lot of oohing and aahing about it too, some of the stories are in fact, very well told and quite compelling.

And I don't think there's another game out there that inspires that kind of genuine reaction in players.

To me anyway, that's what makes DayZ, Dayz, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than other 'safe' games.

Anyway my question to these people is basically, what do you expect?

How do you expect other players to react to you in their presence?

Do you expect to call out friendly, then hold hands and kill zombies together without ANY risk of being killed?

Because that could happen.

But you know, there can't be one without the other.

DayZ is all or nothing, it's either completely safe all the time (and a lot of these people won't be happy until that's the case), or it's not safe any of the time.

I know which one is a more compelling gaming experience for me, and I hope it stays that way.

More like, ghillie suited person with sniper 400 meters away shoots person when he is equipped with a crossbow, post about it on the forums & then these "hardcore nerds" come around & insult the player that got killed becuase he does not have the "skill".

Edited July 20, 2012 by Robert_merello

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

More like, ghillie suited person with sniper 400 meters away shoots person when he is equipped with a crossbow, post about it on the forums & then these "hardcore nerds" come around & insult the player that got killed becuase he does not have the "skill".

HI guys, my name is Robert Merello and I have a problem where I get mad when someone kills me. I refuse to adapt to the situation or learn how to avoid it, I just make excuses such as "I wasn't prepared -- He had a better weapon -- He had better camouflage" yada yada yada.

You can kill a sniper in a ghillie suit using a Makarov and your brain. Try it some time. I'm not very awesome Robert, and I killed 4 different snipers around Elektro the other day armed with much much more inferior equipment compared to them. Why can't you do that? Why instead do you have to moan that the game is broken?

When I die, it's my fault plain and simple. Even if the dude has a thermal L85. I died to one of those recently. It was still my fault, I knew the risks in the area I was in and pushed my luck.

Edited July 20, 2012 by itputsthelotion

[azrael72 28]

So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.

To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. -Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch XIII___________________________________________

I'd never thought I'd actually quote a 16th century political philosopher on a video game forum. But this is DayZ right? In this thread, and many others on the PVP subject, we have arguments based on the history of civilization, and the evolution of the human species. It's thought provoking stuff indeed.

The above passages from Leviathan kind of sums up both why PVP occurs, whether we like or not, and also why in the current the current state of the mod, nothing can really be done about it, whether we like or not.

All I ask is that users are given the choice and freedom to do as they please. It would seem rocket appreciates that.

That's what I stated before. Any artificial "limitation" on PvP is lame. Start a Dayz police force if you want? I'm all for it man -- Go make a thread in the survivor section "Andrej's Police squad -- Call us for help!". Kickass.

Although, I don't engage in PVP myself - and by the way I'm surviving just fine in the wilds, so if I can do it anyone can - I must agree with Silence of the Lambs guy. There are threads on the forums attempting to create zones of friendly co-op, and I salute their creativity and ambition. There are also in Bandit HQ groups who will coordinate, spy, and all out war to take over the friendly zones. There are people who will kill just to kill - for the numbers, or for laughs. I don't like getting randomly killed anymore than anyone else does, but neither can I support artificial limits/consequences for that particular playstyle. Neither can I support artificial means to encourage the "carebear" style of gameplay.

I'm afraid that adding those types of things as actual game mechanics might diminish DayZs unique, player developed environment. I don't have to like the environment, I just have to try to survive it as it evolves...and that's what makes it really fun, and scary, for me, at least.

[evulclown@gmail.com 191]

Holy shit, Azrael72 just rained down a logic monsoon in here. I'm drowning in it.

Edited July 20, 2012 by itputsthelotion

[Dr. Toros 8]

So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.

To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. -Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch XIII___________________________________________

I'd never thought I'd actually quote a 16th century political philosopher on a video game forum. But this is DayZ right? In this thread, and many others on the PVP subject, we have arguments based on the history of civilization, and the evolution of the human species. It's thought provoking stuff indeed.

The above passages from Leviathan kind of sums up both why PVP occurs, whether we like or not, and also why in the current the current state of the mod, nothing can really be done about it, whether we like or not.

Although, I don't engage in PVP myself - and by the way I'm surviving just fine in the wilds, so if I can do it anyone can - I must agree with Silence of the Lambs guy. There are threads on the forums attempting to create zones of friendly co-op, and I salute their creativity and ambition. There are also in Bandit HQ groups who will coordinate, spy, and all out war to take over the friendly zones. There are people who will kill just to kill - for the numbers, or for laughs. I don't like getting randomly killed anymore than anyone else does, but neither can I support artificial limits/consequences for that particular playstyle. Neither can I support artificial means to encourage the "carebear" style of gameplay.

I'm afraid that adding those types of things as actual game mechanics might diminish DayZs unique, player developed environment. I don't have to like the environment, I just have to try to survive it as it evolves...and that's what makes it really fun, and scary, for me, at least.

I've been reading both sides of the arguement, and the crux of the issue is thus:

-Aspects that reward and encourage aggression are fairly implimented with some semblence to reality, by and large.

-Aspects that reward and encourage cooperation are not, by and large, supported in any way that reflects reality.

While this is a griefer paradise, there are plenty of unrealistic things preventing people from working together, which exist in real life. Some can be represented in game, and others cannot.

Fundamentally, part of the issue is the game mechanics.

-Being able to hop from server to server, transferring your location and items, being able to combat disconnect, all means that everyone you meet will always be a stranger, so you never see familiar faces.

-Character customization is pathetic, making recognizing allies very difficult. Without using player tags (which cause their own problems) or using 3rd party voice chat, it is very difficult to tell allies from enemies from far away.

-There is no specialization in the game. Everyone can do exactly the same thing as everyone else, with the same effectiveness. Everyone can give a blood transfusion and rebuild a helicopter, so other than extra guns, why would you need anyone else? Even at a tribal level people have different skills, which is a big reason why people don't murder each other in small groups. You lose whatever abilities they had.

-The debug counter showing murders and bandit kills is not encouraging anything but pulling the trigger, for the weakest of reasons possible, and invisible +1 to some stat that doesn't mean anything.

Because of these "features" and the fact that this game is based off of a milsim, aggressive pvp is done fairly well. Huge chunks of what makes cooperation happen are missing due to what the base game lacks, and the mod hasn't supplied.

Bandit skins were not a bad idea in the abstract sense. They were trying to sacrifice realism to improve gameplay without removing freedom of choice. Sacrificing realism for better gameplay is the fundamental tradeoff that anyone playing a game makes. Sacrifice enough realism though, and gameplay suffers, which it does in many games.

The problem with bandit skins is that rocket implimented them like shit. The game which nailed the pvp vs pve problem was UO. UO eventually fucked it up, but they had the best system thus far. People got murder counts, which went away over time, but if you had say 5 murder counts, or more than 2 murders in 24 realtime hours, your name turned red, and it told everyone you were a murderer.

Yes, this sacrificed realism, but it did 2 things.

1) it cut down on meaningless pvp heavily, as pretty much everyone killed someone with a red name on sight, which made only dedicated pkers go red

2) You could trust people who didn't have a red name... to a point. Someone with a blue name might be a selective killer, but they aren't going to murder you just for fun.

I'm not inherently against unrealistic pvp penalties (such as bandit skins) simply because things that make people work togather aren't supported. Neither is realistic, but it's balanced. I'm for whatever is going to improve the quality of the game experience, which needs improving if it's not supposed to be a sandbox deathmatch game.

I came into day Z expecting a full-loot zombie survival simulator.

-zombies are buggy and not a threat

-survival is incredibly easy and incredibly boring. Gather supplies, hide out in the woods by a pond, eat and drink until you die from falling asleep at the keyboard.

-combat disconnecting means that in meaningful pvp, the other party can simply opt-out, denying you of loot even if they died.

What day Z is, is not much more than a sandbox deathmatch currently, and doesn't really do either job very well.

If I want a sandbox, I'll play UO or minecraft. If I want a deathmath, I'll play tf2 or counterstrike. If I want zombie survivial with guns, I'll just play killing floor.

For day Z to work, it has to be more than the sum of it's parts, because none of it's parts are done very well.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Dr. Toros

[spammy@live.de 19]

UO eventually fucked it up, but they had the best system thus far. People got murder counts, which went away over time, but if you had say 5 murder counts, or more than 2 murders in 24 realtime hours, your name turned red, and it told everyone you were a murderer.

Yes, this sacrificed realism, but it did 2 things.

1) it cut down on meaningless pvp heavily, as pretty much everyone killed someone with a red name on sight, which made only dedicated pkers go red

2) You could trust people who didn't have a red name... to a point. Someone with a blue name might be a selective killer, but they aren't going to murder you just for fun.

The same system could be done in a more "realistic" manner.

F.e. players behaving "insane" turn into zombies over time. Killers get a zombie skin, griefers get penalities, total asshats get zombified, game over.

The ruleset could be optional, so players can still play deathmatch on different servers if they want to.

[azrael72 28]

Holy shit, Azrael72 just rained down a logic monsoon in here. I'm drowning in it.

LOL! I do tend to run on a bit don't I. Allow me to toss you a DayZ life preserver! :beans:

[Saylaion 1]

They have nothing to do? I've only like gone down south to PVP on purpose once, that was because I had everything except a vehicle, ghillie suit, and NVGS. Constant searching got boring. And we had tons of food. We did it because we had nothing better to do.

[gizm0 96]

I've been reading both sides of the arguement, and the crux of the issue is thus:

-Aspects that reward and encourage aggression are fairly implimented with some semblence to reality, by and large.

-Aspects that reward and encourage cooperation are not, by and large, supported in any way that reflects reality.

While this is a griefer paradise, there are plenty of unrealistic things preventing people from working together, which exist in real life. Some can be represented in game, and others cannot.

Fundamentally, part of the issue is the game mechanics.

-Being able to hop from server to server, transferring your location and items, being able to combat disconnect, all means that everyone you meet will always be a stranger, so you never see familiar faces.

-Character customization is pathetic, making recognizing allies very difficult. Without using player tags (which cause their own problems) or using 3rd party voice chat, it is very difficult to tell allies from enemies from far away.

-There is no specialization in the game. Everyone can do exactly the same thing as everyone else, with the same effectiveness. Everyone can give a blood transfusion and rebuild a helicopter, so other than extra guns, why would you need anyone else? Even at a tribal level people have different skills, which is a big reason why people don't murder each other in small groups. You lose whatever abilities they had.

-The debug counter showing murders and bandit kills is not encouraging anything but pulling the trigger, for the weakest of reasons possible, and invisible +1 to some stat that doesn't mean anything.

Because of these "features" and the fact that this game is based off of a milsim, aggressive pvp is done fairly well. Huge chunks of what makes cooperation happen are missing due to what the base game lacks, and the mod hasn't supplied.

Bandit skins were not a bad idea in the abstract sense. They were trying to sacrifice realism to improve gameplay without removing freedom of choice. Sacrificing realism for better gameplay is the fundamental tradeoff that anyone playing a game makes. Sacrifice enough realism though, and gameplay suffers, which it does in many games.

The problem with bandit skins is that rocket implimented them like shit. The game which nailed the pvp vs pve problem was UO. UO eventually fucked it up, but they had the best system thus far. People got murder counts, which went away over time, but if you had say 5 murder counts, or more than 2 murders in 24 realtime hours, your name turned red, and it told everyone you were a murderer.

Yes, this sacrificed realism, but it did 2 things.

1) it cut down on meaningless pvp heavily, as pretty much everyone killed someone with a red name on sight, which made only dedicated pkers go red

2) You could trust people who didn't have a red name... to a point. Someone with a blue name might be a selective killer, but they aren't going to murder you just for fun.

I'm not inherently against unrealistic pvp penalties (such as bandit skins) simply because things that make people work togather aren't supported. Neither is realistic, but it's balanced. I'm for whatever is going to improve the quality of the game experience, which needs improving if it's not supposed to be a sandbox deathmatch game.

I came into day Z expecting a full-loot zombie survival simulator.

-zombies are buggy and not a threat

-survival is incredibly easy and incredibly boring. Gather supplies, hide out in the woods by a pond, eat and drink until you die from falling asleep at the keyboard.

-combat disconnecting means that in meaningful pvp, the other party can simply opt-out, denying you of loot even if they died.

What day Z is, is not much more than a sandbox deathmatch currently, and doesn't really do either job very well.

If I want a sandbox, I'll play UO or minecraft. If I want a deathmath, I'll play tf2 or counterstrike. If I want zombie survivial with guns, I'll just play killing floor.

For day Z to work, it has to be more than the sum of it's parts, because none of it's parts are done very well.

Also if I might add there are no non-lethal options for PVP. I mean look at APB and how they do LTL, I think something similar would be good as well as the option to arrest/detain someone would mean we could punish bandits/ mug/ and interrogation of players without having to kill them or risk them killing us since they can't use their weapons anymore and hopefully not alt-f4 as it would prevent the esc menu from coming up like being knocked out.

[Dr. Toros 8]

Also if I might add there are no non-lethal options for PVP. I mean look at APB and how they do LTL, I think something similar would be good as well as the option to arrest/detain someone would mean we could punish bandits/ mug/ and interrogation of players without having to kill them or risk them killing us since they can't use their weapons anymore and hopefully not alt-f4 as it would prevent the esc menu from coming up like being knocked out.

Frankly, I'd like a tranq gun. See another survivor in town? Tranq him and loot him, then move on before he wakes up. Or, using the game mechanics incorrectly, tranq him and offer him help, not epi-penning him awake until you're satisfied he's trustworthy.

[ukko (DayZ) 5]

I'm not hearing very many suggestions from people who dislike PvP, it's all oohing and aahing again.

Remember the 3 golden tenants.

1. You encounter another player.

2. That player kills you.

3. You don't like being killed.

Forget the Shakespearian monologues of how one particular death was 'unfair' in your mind and cut to the chase.

What do YOU think should be done about it?

Nice thread. So far haven't seen any good solutions to this "problem". Usually silly crap like hearing bad dudes heart beat, give them swetty faces or "make zombies so difficult so you cants survive alone and you got to find bro's and be friends" stuff.

Perhaps they could dump whole humanity system, so people dont get any ideas that it would matter.

I play this solo all out deathmatch. Surely you can (try) do that larp stuff chatting to people making friends. Just dont make threads about it when it doesnt work out. Getting pissed off about server hoppers is understandable, but is completely differrent thing. Hope they find some fix for that.

I like things pretty much as they are now.

[gizm0 96]

Frankly, I'd like a tranq gun. See another survivor in town? Tranq him and loot him, then move on before he wakes up. Or, using the game mechanics incorrectly, tranq him and offer him help, not epi-penning him awake until you're satisfied he's trustworthy.

I don't see how using them incorrectly would be netualizing a possible threat without killing them and than using it as a chance to figure out their intentions as well as if they truly are a threat.

[Guest]

if there is currently mindless pvping and the majority of players have done it compared to the "peace & love" approach then it must be what they want to do because its fun , i think you roleplayers should stop trying to turn it into another grinding rpg with skills/perks. If you guys want to roleplay then you must adjust your playing to the style of the mod. #if you want to have a survivor group and do things then you better be prepared to defend yourself or get out. All the tools are ingame for you to make these groups/safe zones/trading areas but YOU guys need to make it happen yourselves.

[baz (DayZ) 19]

I agree with a few of the posts here, but everyone seems to have a different opinion so there aren't just two sides.

Personally, I would like to be able to help people. Unfortunately, trying to meet someone in game that is armed is pretty much guaranteed to leave me with a bullet in the face. But at the same time, I want there to be risk involved. I don't want to be able to KNOW if a person is going to shoot me or not, but as it stands, I do know they will shoot me. So that basically removes the option to play as a helpful person, which, to me, is the most enjoyable option.

Griefers and bandits give the game the excitement. I like that they are there, it gives me both a reason to be very careful, and it gives me a target that I can feel good about removing from the world. But suppose I approach someone from behind that doesn't know I'm there and I want to try to make contact. What's the safest way? I mean, I know that I don't want to kill them. But every experience I've had leaves me to believe that everyone (including myself after many peaceful attempts) shoots on sight.

Bandit skins was an ok idea (I started playing shortly before they were removed so I didn't get the feel for it) but I agree that it's kind of missing the point of the game. As it seems many other artificial mechanics would.

Although artificial, I think the heartbeat is a good idea and seems well implemented... similar to the bandit skin but you must get close (no idea how close as I've pretty much stayed clear of everyone). This works for bandits because if someone gets close enough to you to get the drop on you, then you probably deserve letting them know you are dangerous. And it works for people such as myself that want to help out or group up with strangers because there is still the risk that I have to get close enough to see if I can hear it, without remaining seen before I can make voice contact because everyone is still in shoot-on-sight.

I propose no changes should be made to the current system of identification. Let the snipers snipe... it's easy to avoid them. Let the bandits do their bandit thing. They're easy to avoid too. Just stay away from the freaking military zones and large cities. Be extremely cautious when looting hospitals. If you want to make friends, sneak up on them from behind and command them to freeze over voice. Let them know your intentions and maybe something good will happen. Or maybe you'll have to put one in their skull.

I would like to see NVG removed however. I currently have a set and it is overpowered compared to having to use glow sticks, flares, and flashlights, which I think is a lot of fun. Maybe make them so they have a limited battery life. Carry that over to the flashlight as well. Add batteries to the game. But that's for another thread I suppose.