It would be nice if there were two separate sides...

[DirtySurvivor 2]

Two "sides"

Bandits and Survivors...

The only difference is:

*Survivors can't damage other survivors but can damage bandits.

*The Bandits on the other hand can attack survivors as well as other bandits.

Just thinking out loud here... I think it would add a nice gameplay element and make teamplay much more friendly.

Those who are looking to group up with others and focus on survival are going to tend to choose survivors... while the lone wolfs or more predatory player groups are going to obviously play bandits.

Its too hard to trust other players I meet randomly ingame when they can shoot me in the back at any time and kill me without a fight. (which they probably would do, given the chance.) On the other hand it would be awesome fun to group with another player or two in the early segments of gameplay, when the makarov is still a nice find ;D

Could even make it a new gametype option for servers... ffa (the way it currently is.) or sides bandits/survivors.

what you think?

[Drblodski 53]

I think you should go back to BF3 or wait till Planetside2 comes out...

[DryGulch 32]

GET OUT

[Badhaggis 40]

Yeah, it would kill the origionality of the game, bandit skins may be a neccisary evil in the long run, but this isn't a good idea.

[Ophidion 11]

Eventually there will no longer be bandits, therefore no longer be any PvP....

Bandits can't live forever, and seeing how you can only become a bandit by killing another survivor there's no way to BECOME a bandit. Then, when all the bandits are dead or missing, the suvivors will no longer be able to kill eachother because PvP with survivors would have been off.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

oh god

[Bribase 251]

I'm not planning on being an arsehole about it.

It's not appropriate for this game.

If factions arise on a server, they need to do it organically.

[fearz0r 128]

I'm not planning on being an arsehole about it.

It's not appropriate for this game.

If factions arise on a server, they need to do it organically.

This. He (Bribase) gets his opinion across without being a moronic troll, like some of the other posts above.

DirtySurvivor, I see where you're going with your idea, but it would (like others have pointed out) kill the game in more ways than one. These things need to come about naturally (or organically, as Bribase put it), and it be a mutual understanding amongst a group of survivors as they're the ones that basically change in your idea.

[outlawxxable 10]

horde and alliance!

[DryGulch 32]

This. He (Bribase) gets his opinion across without being a moronic troll, like some of the other posts above.

If he can keep that level of courtesy up after another 100 more posts dealing with the same bloody 5/6 topics over and over then I will tip my hat to him and call him a better man.

Edited July 19, 2012 by DryGulch

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

lol so true DryGulch, this suggestions forum is becoming extremely tedious.

[DirtySurvivor 2]

Ruin the game? How? what would it change so much that the game would be ruined?

Out of all the things currently ruining this game (hacks, combat logging, admin abuse), I don't see how this suggestion is a ominous threat demanding your offerings of the flame.

I don't see any of my playstyles or other players for that matter being destroyed by this suggestion.

The only real gameplay change I would see is when survivors meet survivors ingame... It wouldn't turn into a gunfight 99% of the time. (unless you choose bandit, in which case it would.)

Currently I probably shoot 99% of people onsight because I don't trust other players. It would be nice to drop that down to like 70%-80% with the remainding occasions ending in teamplay/grouping.