Morale

[ollox 38]

I'm abandoning this idea because it imposes an artificial emotion on the game: feelings of remorse, grief and fear should come from the experience not be imposed on the player.

You should feel grief for a dead comrade because of the journey you've been on together.

You should feel remorse for murder because you are weaker alone.

You should not kill your allies because they are more valuable to you alive.

You should fear your enemies because your life is worth something.

Not all of these factors are true at the moment but they are the ultimate goal and should be remembered when making suggestions.

I will leave this idea intact as a reminder to everyone of what Day Z is and what it is not.

There have been many anti-bandit suggestions but all the ones I've seen imbalance the game by imposing restrictions on how we should play, I've been very careful to avoid this when forming my idea for morale. I want to introduce more consequences and more emotion for both bandits and comrades alike.

Morale is governed by the following factors: Trauma, Familiarity, Hardness and Drugs.

Trauma lowers your morale and is experienced when fighting (players or zombies), when players die, finding dead bodies, and so on. Trauma is permanent and incurable. Trauma must be kept in check as a low morale can lead to increased hunger, thirst and shaking.

Familiarity boosts your morale and is gained by staying close to other players. The downside is that when familiar players die their familiarity to you becomes trauma for your character. All players you come in contact with, even if only for a few seconds, will gain some familiarity towards you until they are far enough away for this to deteriorate.

Hardness bolsters your morale by gradually counter-acting trauma, with the added benefit of making you less susceptible to future traumas.

Drugs, such as cigarettes and alcohol, offer temporary reprieve from trauma and boost to your morale. You may become addicted through prolonged use of drugs and experience a decrease in morale until the addiction is satisfied or starved for long enough to recede. Alcohol abuse impedes vision and co-ordination, but cigarettes take time to smoke and are effective for a shorter time.

So there you have it, your choice is whether to go it alone and support an ever increasing addiction or team up at the risk of being severely traumatised by the death of your friends and possibly falling into drug addiction anyway. What a happy world.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Ollox

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

I understand the concept very well, but i believe that morale is tied to a social construct which doesn't exist anymore in DayZ.

[ollox 38]

I understand the concept very well, but i believe that morale is tied to a social construct which doesn't exist anymore in DayZ.

Are you thinking of morality? That is different to morale. Morale is simply your mood.

[3rdparty 229]

i quite like the idea.

especially as the unmerciful bandits wont be affected so cant see why they would complain either.

only problem i see potentially is if someone has intentionally infiltrated a group to screw them over. I guess you could say that irl an infiltrator to a group might start warming to them slightly but it would still be at a different rate.

I dunno, i like the ideas here though.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Oh RIIIGHT sorry , really sorry. I misread AND am not a native english speaker.

[3rdparty 229]

or as another example, if an infiltrator who youve already been around for a while, reveals themselves throughout whatever scenario, forcing your hand.

i see what ye mean about whatever killing scenario you find yourself in is gonna dampen your morale a bit. But peeps irl do normalise themselves to it.

[DryGulch 32]

Don't mind me.

Edited July 20, 2012 by DryGulch

[ollox 38]

... only problem i see potentially is if someone has intentionally infiltrated a group to screw them over. I guess you could say that irl an infiltrator to a group might start warming to them slightly but it would still be at a different rate...

I agree, I will add this new idea to the OP.

[ollox 38]

Just giving a little bump because there are several threads above this that struggle with problems that I think morale would solve.

[jay.pis 32]

Ok, so the way I understand this is that players lose morale every time they kill someone and with low morale comes those effects in which you'll need to group up so that your morale increases which then removes the effects, correct?

[3rdparty 229]

I agree, I will add this new idea to the OP.

Actually, heres a thought (for infiltrating scenario), the rate of familiarity strengthening could be dictated by how many murders a player has accumulated.

So as an example, a bandit group with strong familiarity with one another but high murders chooses to infilitrate another group. If successful their "resistance to familiarity" is dictated by the murders and is much higher than new survivors/bandit-hunter, but will still increase the longer they spend in that groups company.

Edited July 20, 2012 by 3rdParty

[ZomboWTF 527]

What if you decide you'd be better off on your own? Killing and looting him would be hard to go through with.

no, it wouldn't haunt you, you've killed dozens or hundreds of beings looking like humans with not a single regret: Zombies

[3rdparty 229]

[NEW IDEA]

With experience people grow stronger. Even murder gets easier, but you have to grind every ounce of empathy out of your soul first. Those who lose many friends can become heartless. The lone wolf will gun-down an innocent victim without thinking twice but he'll always be scarred by his past, his only companions being stolen booze and cigarettes.

Negative morale is permanent but the magnitude of the effect is reduced by the amount of negative morale you already have. Positive morale effects are also reduced in the same way, but all positive morale is temporary (even the long-term gain from companions will end when they die).

I do like the original idea because it gives an incentive for groups to stay stuck together, whilst potentially developing non punishing PvP interaction mechanics. But i dont think there should be any kind of punishment for bandits who choose a grim path.

Bandit who ruthlessly kills develops resistance to familiarity. Bandits who are in a groups(ie who have accumulated familiairty), dont have as much resistance to it but still far more than a new survivor or friendly group.

So far tbh i dont see any significant problems in this yet. But im sure theres plenty of other scenarios that are worth playing with

Edited July 20, 2012 by 3rdParty

[ollox 38]

I do like the original idea because it gives an incentive for groups to stay stuck together, whilst potentially developing non punishing PvP interaction mechanics. But i dont think there should be any kind of punishment for bandits who choose a grim path.

If it seems that way I haven't explained the consequences well. I am punishing both playing styles: Losing one close friend could have as much impact on you as killing a dozen strangers. The choice in how you play is deciding whether to scavenge for alcohol and cigarettes but avoid getting attached to anyone, or befriending people which means you wont need so many drugs to keep you happy but you risk a heavy penalty if they die.

[deleted the rest because it was crapply written and too long.]

Edited July 21, 2012 by Ollox

[highpanda 3]

In my opinion, your idea about the drug thingy is one of the best I've ever seen on this forum. :D

It would be great, but maybe you should add some drugs that improved stats as well, like speed or endurance.

[noobfun 87]

so dont get a bandit friend as them dying makes me sad face, and shoot people fast and from range so i dont get attached to the guy im stalking as this will also make me sad face.... got it

[ollox 38]

I've updated the OP with a more succinct explanation.

In my opinion, your idea about the drug thingy is one of the best I've ever seen on this forum. :D

It would be great, but maybe you should add some drugs that improved stats as well, like speed or endurance.

Thanks. I want to focus on emotions but yes other drugs could be added to this system and give you an addiction maybe.

so dont get a bandit friend as them dying makes me sad face, and shoot people fast and from range so i dont get attached to the guy im stalking as this will also make me sad face.... got it

This is the best strategy if you want to kill players. This is why snipers tend not to get as shell-shocked because they don't have to look the person in the eye as they pull the trigger.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Ollox

[Manaw 5]

I think this is a really neat idea, but I think it will force players apart because they'll be thinking "If I team up with this guy and he gets killed later, I'll get trauma!" and won't team up with anyone unless they already have trauma. Some sort of positive effect beyond just helping with trauma should come from grouping with people if this is supposed to encourage grouping.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Manaw

[ollox 38]

I think this is a really neat idea, but I think it will force players apart because they'll be thinking "If I team up with this guy and he gets killed later, I'll get trauma!" and won't team up with anyone unless they already have trauma. Some sort of positive effect beyond just helping with trauma should come from grouping with people if this is supposed to encourage grouping.

Good point. Maybe having friends around would help reduce the effect of any trauma you experience. I'm thinking zombies would traumatise you the same way people become familiar. If you have more than one friend then you wouldn't suffer so badly losing one as you would losing your only friend.

[3rdparty 229]

If it seems that way I haven't explained the consequences well. I am punishing both playing styles: Losing one close friend could have as much impact on you as killing a dozen strangers. The choice in how you play is deciding whether to scavenge for alcohol and cigarettes but avoid getting attached to anyone, or befriending people which means you wont need so many drugs to keep you happy but you risk a heavy penalty if they die.

[deleted the rest because it was crapply written and too long.]

Yea i do like this, but at the same time ive seen discussions along similiar lines where peeps would argue that the addictive attachment is a punishing mechanism, especially if it was added as a necessity to a lone wolf character. Personally i feel that does closer match reality, as drug addiction has been scientifically proven to be the result of emotional deprivation, but i can still see there would be significant chunk of ze community who would wriggle at the thought.

I still think its a sick idea though! +1

Edited July 22, 2012 by 3rdParty

[3rdparty 229]

Guess you could have addiction work in terms of susceptibility. So lone wolves have higher susceptibility then group players(they still have to try the drug first!). Lone wolves have higher familiarity resistance then group players. However Lone wolves have morale than declines quicker then survivors, but is more solid and unaffected by PvP interactions as a pose to group survivors.

IS that kind of what your saying?

[ollox 38]

I think hardness has to be a variable too; so we have Hardness, Trauma, Familiarity, Drugs and Drug Addiction. Here's a diagram that should give an idea how these variables work together.

The right half of the bar is positive morale while the left half is negative.

As you can see, the character hardens over time. They only need drugs or companionship while they are still dealing with trauma, but traumatic events are common and include such things as finding dead bodies or getting close to zombies, not just death.

I don't know what effect an overall positive morale might have yet. I think the game actually needs to evolve before there can be a use for positive morale. We need something to work towards, not just pure survival. If you could build bases and things like that you'd be able to work harder if your morale was high.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Ollox

[3rdparty 229]

Hmm, yea i do like it, dunno if im too comfortable with some of the details but its on track. I reckon there needs to be extra variables on resistance and susceptibility though (that go over the concepts you just laid down).

SO those with high familiairity have high resistance to addiction, whilst those who (slowly) work through trauma rather than the quick fix become harder and more resistant to drugs, for this to work though, the period of traumatisation would have to be long enough for most people not to think its more worth sitting out the trauma and becoming harder.

I do like the idea, but think were gonna have to play around with alot of scenarios first. The jump from 8 to 9 im a bit unsure about in terms of how that would work. AS i also reckon familiairity resistance/susceptibility has to be proportional to your murders/bandit kills

[ollox 38]

I'm abandoning this idea because it imposes an artificial emotion on the game: feelings of remorse, grief and fear should come from the experience not be imposed on the player.

You should feel grief for a dead comrade because of the journey you've been on together.

You should feel remorse for murder because you are weaker alone.

You should not kill your allies because they are more valuable to you alive.

You should fear your enemies because your life is worth something.

Not all of these factors are true at the moment but they are the ultimate goal and should be remembered when making suggestions.

I will leave this idea intact as a reminder to everyone of what Day Z is and what it is not.

I think it's a well presented idea too so hopefully that rubs off on those who post one-line poorly thought out crap.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Ollox

[3rdparty 229]

lol i see no problem with that, but i dont think its such a bad idea tbh

YE are right that the game should conjure up those emotions within the the actual player themselves because that would then be effective immersion.

What I like about this morale system is that it does align people more into their chosen gameplay. And it only seems punishing, if a player radically changes up their gameplay. Even if someone has claimed the title of king of trolls, with his throne high up on Dobryy (overlooking electro XD) stockpiled with leeroy enfield ammo. His resistance to familiarity is high, so even if he linked up with peeps, (he is the type of player whos already got the track record on multiple long range troll kills) he still could play like himself. And if after weeks suddenly a real life friend joined and started playing with him, there would be no ill affects for them joining up. The game will punish him if he murders his friend (assuming they initially spend quite a a bit of time together before the teamspeak conversation gets too frustrating as ze lone troll desperately trys to explain to his friend how this game is diff to bf3).

To me the question of the validity of this idea is about whether peeps think radically changing up game play ie "in game personality" is something that is unrealistic.

V grey area methinks, catch 22!