The Bandit Dilemma: An Inner Look at the Economics and Psychology of Banditry

[Chiefmon 93]

PLEASE GO TO THIS UPDATED THREAD:

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/40043-the-bandit-dilemma-an-inner-look-at-the-economics-and-psychology-of-banditry-and-the-inevitable-collapse-of-day-z/

I see forum members constantly posting about penalties against bandits. I notice a very wide schism between the Pro-PvP and the Anti-PvP. This post is an ATTEMPT at bridging the schism by explaining the underlying psychology and logic behind being a bandit and by showing the basic flaw in balancing bandits with survivors.

The biggest problem with the Bandit issue is the disproportionate ratio of Bandits:Survivors. Right now I would have it pegged at 6:4. This leads to what I would call 'The Bandit Dilemma'. Here is Survivor Bob. He is scavenging and surviving. He sees a survivor across the street in Cherno. What can he do? He has 3 choices: Evasion, Diplomacy, and Elimination.

1. Evasion: Simply avoid the other player. This is often not feasible since they will usually see you first or at the same time. Risk^{Relative chance of loss compared to gain} :None Gain:None Loss:None As you can see, there is no risk in a successful evasion, but cannot be relied on, leading to our intrepid survivor to the other two choices. SUCCESS YIELDS NOTHING TO BOTH SIDES
   
2. Diplomacy: Try and talk to the other and forge an alliance. This is, for many, the best outcome. Both players gain a better chance of survival, but at the risk of death on their first encounter. They could gain a companion, or they could be shot on sight. Risk:Med-HighGain:High Loss: Increasing relative to life length The loss in this one is unusual. If Bob is a new player with just a bandage and a flashlight, death is not a big loss for him. If He has a helicopter waiting outside of town, a gillie suit, and a GPS, death would be a huge loss. So, the more progress He makes in this game, the higher the risk with diplomacy. SUCCESS YIELDS GAINS TO BOTH SIDES
   
3. Elimination: Attempt to kill the other player as expediently as possible. IF I fire first, I have a low chance of death. A n00b with only a Makarov can kill an experienced player with a rifle if they can get a good burst off before the other player has time to respond. This decision will prevent the other player from harming Bob. Also, the other player could have better loot on him. Risk: Low-Med Gain:Variable based on location Loss: Increasing relative to life length Bob open firing on the other player could yield excellent loot, especially if they are further inland where the better equipped survivors loom. This is not discounting the chance of a super player on the coast or a n00b on the NW Airfield, but is instead relying on statistical tendencies. The CHANCE of death is lower than risking diplomacy even though the loss is equally severe. If they BOTH choose elimination, one or both will die. SUCCESS LEADS TO GAINS FOR ONE, DEATH TO THE OTHER
   

So, what should Bob do? Anyone who has taken a Economics class has surely heard of the prisoner's dilemma. It's the same as the Bandit's Dilemma. 2 prisoners are called on to testify against each other. If they both stay silent, they both get 1 year in prison. If they both talk, they both get 5 years in prison. If one talks and the other doesn't, the silent one gets 20 years and the talker goes free. Both are naturally inclined to talk to avoid the 20 year sentence, but they could both get the 1 year sentence if they work together. The problem is, much like with the Bandit's Dilemma, they have no idea what the other will choose.

Early game, the logical choice is to work together. Even if you die, you lost only an hour of play. Late game, everyone will logically choose to kill each other. If you die, you lost 5 hours of play. I myself adopted a shoot-on-sight policy when I went to the NW Airfield because I didn't want to lose all my stuff. (Thankfully it was abandoned, so I did not have to kill anyone.) For the good of both, they should work together. Late game, an extra sniper providing cover fire is a great advantage. But what if he shoots you instead? He would get all your stuff and you'd respawn kicking yourself for trying to be diplomatic.

Here's the flaw in balance: The more items a player gets, the more reason they have to kill anyone who gets near them. The less they have, the better reason to be diplomatic. So we are stuck in a world where, through natural selection, Bandits are well armed and the diplomatic are either constantly killed or are forced to take up banditry as a form of self defense. If EVERYONE stopped being bandits, everyone would prosper. But now we are moving toward a exclusively PvP world. When the ONLY way to become fully armed is through banditry and shoot-on-sight tactics, the bandit population will only grow.

Back to survivor Bob:

B=Bob S= Other survivor D=Diplomacy E=Extermination

BD/SD- Both call out friendly and salute. They team up and exchange supplies. The other survivor is low on food but has tons of soda, Bob has tons of cooked meat, but is low on water. They both benefit and continue on, covering each other and scavenging. Working together, they eventually get a car repaired and set off on a grand adventure.

BD/SE- Bob waves and is promptly shot in the face. Bob dies.

BE/SD- The other survivor calls out friendly and Bob empties a M1911 into his chest. The other survivor dies and Bob picks his corpse clean of supplies, making out with more food and water than he could consume. He comes across a repairable car later, but doesn't have the time or inventory space to repair it.

BE/SE- They open fire on each other. Bob kills the other survivor and survives with 1000 blood and a broken leg. He doesn't last long against the zombies that heard the gunshots.

That is the Bandit's Dilemma in a nutshell. This does not take into account the jackasses who kill for fun. Seriously, those guys are asshats. WHO KILLS A SURVIVOR 5 SECONDS AFTER HE SPAWNS!? YOU HAD NO REASON TO WASTE A SNIPER ROUND ON ME! Also, for those interested, just gonna put this here: Yeah.

Also, please comment if you feel you have any additional insight on this subject.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Chiefmon

[Junos 57]

Both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of DayZ is that it allows players complete freedom with no real repercussions. This allows the best and the worst of human nature to come to light. In real life one wouldn't shoot someone when you might need their help to survive, or when they might end up killing you first, because you only have one life. In this game, you get to respawn, so it's easier to take risks.

The anonymity of the Internet also allows people to be jerks and shoot new spawns just because they can--just for the practice. That's the worst part, because in real life, people wouldn't snipe from a distance people who are unarmed and have nothing. This is just griefing over the Internet, which having anonymity and no repercussions facilitates.

But without players to worry about, we'd have L4D on a huge map. AI gets boring.

One of the great things about DayZ is the unknown. Try joining a random server, not using out-of-game maps or resources, and not ever looking at the player list. Try meeting a friend in a town without using out-of-game comms after you join the game.

Bottom line: I have no problem with bandits. I do have a problem with people who snipe people just because they can, who don't even care about their gear, especially those who snipe new spawns. That's just griefing, and people like that should be ashamed. Shoot a player to take his better gear, or because he's a threat--not because he just spawned and has no idea you're there.

But there's nothing that can be done about people like that either. It's just another challenging element of this brutal anti-game.

The only thing I can think of that might possibly be a reasonable penalty for excessive "murders" in DayZ would be for it to affect the bandit's steadiness of aim when he's near other players. This would simulate being uneasy around other humans after having taken so many lives, perhaps being fearful of being killed in retaliation. It would make it difficult for bandits to team up, simulating anxiety and distrust. This would push bandits into loner roles and encourage non-bandit teamwork. Lone bandits would be more vulnerable, so this would slightly discourage banditry in general.

[daniel.owens@iqu.com 43]

Both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of DayZ is that it allows players complete freedom with no real repercussions. This allows the best and the worst of human nature to come to light. In real life one wouldn't shoot someone when you might need their help to survive, or when they might end up killing you first, because you only have one life. In this game, you get to respawn, so it's easier to take risks.

The anonymity of the Internet also allows people to be jerks and shoot new spawns just because they can--just for the practice. That's the worst part, because in real life, people wouldn't snipe from a distance people who are unarmed and have nothing. This is just griefing over the Internet, which having anonymity and no repercussions facilitates.

But without players to worry about, we'd have L4D on a huge map. AI gets boring.

One of the great things about DayZ is the unknown. Try joining a random server, not using out-of-game maps or resources, and not ever looking at the player list. Try meeting a friend in a town without using out-of-game comms after you join the game.

Bottom line: I have no problem with bandits. I do have a problem with people who snipe people just because they can, who don't even care about their gear, especially those who snipe new spawns. That's just griefing, and people like that should be ashamed. Shoot a player to take his better gear, or because he's a threat--not because he just spawned and has no idea you're there.

But there's nothing that can be done about people like that either. It's just another challenging element of this brutal anti-game.

The only thing I can think of that might possibly be a reasonable penalty for excessive "murders" in DayZ would be for it to affect the bandit's steadiness of aim when he's near other players. This would simulate being uneasy around other humans after having taken so many lives, perhaps being fearful of being killed in retaliation. It would make it difficult for bandits to team up, simulating anxiety and distrust. This would push bandits into loner roles and encourage non-bandit teamwork. Lone bandits would be more vulnerable, so this would slightly discourage banditry in general.

Who are you to say what people would and wouldn't do?

I can see this being an issue in a real apocalypse, there are a lot of people that would love to go on a shooting spree in an apocalypse situation.. and there would be no respawn. Are you saying everyone in real life is nice and dandy, but everyone in DayZ is an ass? Be more naive.

[wartzilla 182]

This does not take into account the jackasses who kill for fun. Seriously, those guys are asshats. WHO KILLS A SURVIVOR 5 SECONDS AFTER HE SPAWNS!? YOU HAD NO REASON TO WASTE A SNIPER ROUND ON ME! Also, for those interested, just gonna put this here: Yeah.

Perhaps this post would do better in the survivor forum, where you can all be butthurt in unison.

Also, those of you who seem to think people who kill other people get progressively worse at it as they go on, you should go talk to a professional soldier some time. Believe me, his 'aim doesn't get worse' because he's 'afraid of getting killed'. Rather, he feels more confident because he has more combat experience. Which is *exactly* how it works in DayZ, without any arbitrary effects applied to the player that make no sense whatsoever.

[Hayez 18]

BD/SE- Bob waves and is promptly shot in the face. Bob dies.

I Laughed hard at this one.

[Junos 57]

Who are you to say what people would and wouldn't do?

I can see this being an issue in a real apocalypse, there are a lot of people that would love to go on a shooting spree in an apocalypse situation.. and there would be no respawn. Are you saying everyone in real life is nice and dandy, but everyone in DayZ is an ass? Be more naive.

You're jumping to illogical extremes. You know as well as I do that there aren't many true sociopaths among the population. There's a difference between people who hate their jobs and think "I wish my boss were dead" and people who would actually murder someone.

In a real apocalyptic situation, where zombies outnumbered survivors, real human contact would be more valuable than food or water, because for most people, a life alone is hardly worth living. It would be stressful enough having to avoid thousands of mindless, bloodthirsty monsters and scrounge for the tinest scrap of food. Adding the mindless slaughter of real human beings would be more than most people could handle.

Also, those of you who seem to think people who kill other people get progressively worse at it as they go on, you should go talk to a professional soldier some time. Believe me, his 'aim doesn't get worse' because he's 'afraid of getting killed'. Rather, he feels more confident because he has more combat experience. Which is *exactly* how it works in DayZ, without any arbitrary effects applied to the player that make no sense whatsoever.

You fail to understand the distinction between wartime combat and a survival apocalypse. Shooting a sworn, uniformed enemy who's out to kill you along with the rest of his army is completely different than murdering a "plain human being" who's simply trying to survive, just like you.

Besides, you should go talk to a professional soldier sometime and ask him about PTSD. "War is hell." Killing other people is not something the human psyche takes lightly, unless the human is an utter psychopath. Do you really think killing people has no psychological impact?

Like I said, I'm no fan of artificial consequences. But this is not real life, yet it tries to imitate a hypothetical situation in it. The lack of psychological consequences for players calls for some form of compensation in the game. Anxiety and paranoia and PTSD seem like reasonable consequences to emulate. A shaky hand when around other survivors, whom you no longer trust after so much senseless killing, seems reasonable to me. There may be better ways to emulate it. If you have ideas, please share.

[MyOwnInsanity 0]

Whats with all this real life soldier stuff and comparing a GAME to real life. Any game or survival simulator is going to have people playing it as they would in real life and have people playing it as if it were a game. If there were a game based around mountain climbing im sure there would be those that hiked and those that ran infront of them teabagging for the hell of it. People need to stop spouting this "awww he killed me!! i was unarmed!! this wouldn't happen in real life" bs cause random behaviour should be expected in a game. Btw if this ever becomes a reality and i do see one of those people in real life scavenging a can of beans i'll break their legs with those beans just to show them it could happen :P

Anyway to the point at hand, i think this bandit dilemma is missing the point entirely. The choices shown above about elimination, diplomicy and evasion and the summaries of each are apparent to everyone after an hour or so of playing the game. You read all the time about people saying they just died then ran into town without regard cause they had nothing to lose. Pointing them out was fairly moot cause everyone already understands the concepts easily. They just tend to disregard them when they believe someone with better gear killed them for no reason. They never put themselves in anothers shoes. The basic TL;DR of this is, survivor Bob has no gear, he doesnt care for his life, then later survivor Bob has gear, he isn't trusting anyone anymore and other players have the same thought patterns but then have that unknown factor about how much they care about simulating real life or just messing around and teabagging some people.

As for psychological consequences for Bandits. I would say no to them in DayZ. The reason there are pysiological consequences in a lot of games is because they are not as unique to the individual as psychological effects are. Randomly throw people into an industrial freezer and barring some extreme increase in their tolerance through training they will eventually cirum to hypothermia. Whereas when someone loses a family member, 1 person could be back working the next day, another could be out of work for a month and even another could be out of work for much longer because of how it affected them. How do serial killers end up as serial killers? It'd be entirely possible for the apocolypse to turn what are currently average people into murderers and bandits, i assume the camping snipers would be the extreme minority but you never know what people will do under extreme circumstances.

At the moment there is not enough of a distinction or a wrong one in my opinion between who represents a bandit and who is a survivor. It's still easy enough to be a survivor when you have obtained better gear, it just becomes more appealing to become a bandit through the guise of self preservation. The flaw in the system of deciding who is who is in the way they kill. If you legit think someone poses a significant threat to your character and you kill them yet your goal is to survive (and you regret having to kill) you're a survivor in my mind yet if you see someone walking away from you and kill them for their possessions you're a bandit to me. The main problem being it is hard for a game to distinguish between killing someone because they have seen you and are appearing aggressive towards you leaving you no choice but to kill them and killing someone as they walked by your bush cause they had a tasty looking sniper rifle.

[MRJOEYBON 18]

Who are you to say what people would and wouldn't do?

I can see this being an issue in a real apocalypse, there are a lot of people that would love to go on a shooting spree in an apocalypse situation.. and there would be no respawn. Are you saying everyone in real life is nice and dandy, but everyone in DayZ is an ass? Be more naive.

No, he's saying that unlike in DayZ you wouldn't be able to find sniper rifle ammo growing off of trees, growing out of office buildings, growing out of helicopters, and growing out of the ground. You wouldn't find plenty of ammo to restock your baby in the nearest fire station. So either you waste ammo on that little unarmed guy down the street or you save it for when you need it.

And yeah, most people wouldn't go off and kill people for no reason. Plenty of people who would "love" to simply wouldn't have the balls in real life. Especially when there's a chance they might get shot back. In real life, most people haven't even been to a shooting range let alone have any real skill at it. If you really think point and shoot would work well in real life at any real range then a quick look at the wars of the past would change your mind fast.

[Blakorr 77]

if you want to curb senseless banditry, fix the ammo bugs. if i can get infinite ammo by recombining or by disconnecting and relogging, i can camp all day and shoot people and never have to worry about my ammo supply.

[Chiefmon 93]

Perhaps this post would do better in the survivor forum, where you can all be butthurt in unison.

Also, those of you who seem to think people who kill other people get progressively worse at it as they go on, you should go talk to a professional soldier some time. Believe me, his 'aim doesn't get worse' because he's 'afraid of getting killed'. Rather, he feels more confident because he has more combat experience. Which is *exactly* how it works in DayZ, without any arbitrary effects applied to the player that make no sense whatsoever.

The little rage there was meant as a little bit of humor. I was doing it ironically in stark contrast to the seriousness and ambivalent reasoning before it. I'm sorry that you did not pick up on it.

[Chiefmon 93]

Whats with all this real life soldier stuff and comparing a GAME to real life. Any game or survival simulator is going to have people playing it as they would in real life and have people playing it as if it were a game. If there were a game based around mountain climbing im sure there would be those that hiked and those that ran infront of them teabagging for the hell of it. People need to stop spouting this "awww he killed me!! i was unarmed!! this wouldn't happen in real life" bs cause random behaviour should be expected in a game. Btw if this ever becomes a reality and i do see one of those people in real life scavenging a can of beans i'll break their legs with those beans just to show them it could happen :P

Anyway to the point at hand, i think this bandit dilemma is missing the point entirely. The choices shown above about elimination, diplomicy and evasion and the summaries of each are apparent to everyone after an hour or so of playing the game. You read all the time about people saying they just died then ran into town without regard cause they had nothing to lose. Pointing them out was fairly moot cause everyone already understands the concepts easily. They just tend to disregard them when they believe someone with better gear killed them for no reason. They never put themselves in anothers shoes. The basic TL;DR of this is, survivor Bob has no gear, he doesnt care for his life, then later survivor Bob has gear, he isn't trusting anyone anymore and other players have the same thought patterns but then have that unknown factor about how much they care about simulating real life or just messing around and teabagging some people.

The point I am trying to make is that the game is structured so that experienced players have more reason to be bandits. This is like having a COD game where one team is composed of level 50's and the other team is only level 5's. This in turn makes the newer players WANT to be bandits.

[frodevil 15]

Right now I would have it pegged at 6:4.

Stopped reading here, OP doesn't even know that ratios and fractions are supposed to be divided. It should be a 3:2 ratio

[rallye 89]

I kill people and don't even take their stuff. Analyze me next!

[MyOwnInsanity 0]

The point I am trying to make is that the game is structured so that experienced players have more reason to be bandits. This is like having a COD game where one team is composed of level 50's and the other team is only level 5's. This in turn makes the newer players WANT to be bandits.

Ofcourse they do, they have better stuff. Also i believe everyone in a COD game is a bandit regardless of the opposing players, although it'd be weird if anyone was anything other than a bandit considering thats all the game is focused towards and rewards. Hard to compare the two even with that example.

[kebman 213]

Great work, Chiefmon! That stuff is scientificly tested.

Very true, Junos. In a "real apocalypse" people would help each other. I mean, what did the imprisoned to in the death camps? Why didn't they simply try to kill each other for the leftovers? That's right! Charity makes it much easier to survive with an external threat. In the death camps, the Nazis were the external threat. In DayZ, the zombies are. Also cooperation makes it much safer to survive in real life, rather than if you piss everyone else off by killing somebody.

There are countless other examples on this, not just from death camps, but also real world communities on the brink. How do you think hunter gatherer societies survived anyway? They are in much the same situation. If they do not cooperate, they'll die of starvation or because of the beasts of the forest (or the savannah).

Whereas game theory works on internet games and on big corporations, it does not work in the real world, on real people. That is the lesson learned from the "Beautiful Mind", John Forbes Nash. The reason is simply charity, and the innate inclination for people to work together.

Reason: In real life there is no respawn.

Also, if somebody were known for shooting people in real life, what did the rest of the community do? Right again, hunt them down and lynch them. So when real life shows how banditry, or rather raiding, is punished so hard, then it simply doesn't do as a long term survival tactic - unlike in DayZ where you will respawn at the coast anyway.

I'm not sure what I think about that, currently. I think you're right, Chiefmon. The game does skew towards banditry. There might be some good experiences if you cooperated, like driving a car, yet, with all the insecurity (and bitterness) this game has to offer, banditry is simply the easy way out - even if you're not that skilled. I hope Rocket finds some way that makes it more rewarding to cooperate, and also makes it harder to be a bandit. After all, if this is going to be anything like a simulation, a bandit would be hunted down and killed by the rest of the community. However, unlike in the real world, there simply isn't enough time in the game for people to really bond, and thus bandits roam free and have a much easier life in DayZ than they would in real life.

Anyway, WinterWolf's only argument against you, Junos, is an Ad hominem, and thus not worth even a comment. Still I'm amazed to see how well you handled it.

Edited July 25, 2012 by kebman

[Sammy101 112]

Actually it's currently a 6:1 or 5:1 survivor - bandit ratio (check front page). I personally did not read your text because I am not here to argue as much as i am here to correct your facts. I've done a lot of research on this subject (lol), and many new people will take help when they start out. In my experiences seasoned players with guns tend to not be as friendly, like you said. Just like newer players tend to help out each other. I obviously don't have such an extensive vocabulary such as some who might post in here, however the logic is the same no matter what.

Apparently there is only 5% of the population left (from what I've read on the forums), and on Rockets terms, the last few percentages (as was the note on the front page). I am pretty sure if this was the last few percentages of the population left, there would not be as much of a helpful charitable community towards strangers as there would be in a newly generated or presently created post apocolyptic community. If you've watched The Road, Book of Eli, and read plenty of post apocolyptic literature, there are always bad guys, and lots of evil in the world. Now this is from Hollywood and entertainment producers, but I'm sure they've got the idea right about people not behaving so well because of a "community".

On that note, I apologize for not reading your statements; it's just it reminded me so much of my education days that it wasn't very enticing. It looked quite professional though. I will say this though. I am a crude bandit, pretty much the sleaziest of my kind. I only have one exception, and that is to try and not hunt in Southern Shore cities or people without weapons or very little on them. Other than that, I kill lots of people. But these past few days like I have mentioned, I brought friendliness to lots of people in Chernogorsk and Elektrovask. People were dying to be friendly in those towns when they found someone who looked seasoned. Maybe that's just the way people are, wanting to learn and follow a leader. However, when I went up to Starry and showed the same potential for relationships, I found resistance at times. But even then, I find people who say friendly when I spam my mic of "I'm friendly. Are you friendly?" from behind a rusted car. People are willing to be nice, because remember, there is a 6:1 / 5:1 ratio of Survivors to Bandits.

You have to find singular people however, because finding clans or groups (which could be called communities) indicates that there will be pressure from peers who are aggressive, and those that are passive. Groups will almost always follow through with decisions that someone important makes. Thus that is why you can't find people who are in large bunches. You need to find singular people to test this theory out. Granted, there are still bandits, but there are many friendly people as well. Old elders who've one I met was 61 years old. And wee children, some who are still waiting for puberty to strike.

These are just my notes on the situation, from what I believe and etc. Again I apologize for not viewing your notes, but you can take my post in as much value as I took yours. It is truely up to you.

[insolentfool 17]

as one of the assholes who tries to take out as many people as i can, i can say that several newbies have managed to kill me over the last week with lesser gear then got their hands on some primo gear. sure, the 6 before him may have failed, but the guy who managed to sneak up on my sniping spot and 1shot me with a crowbar deserved every bit of loot he got from my body.

Yes i agree that this game facilitates trolling. But after "winning" at surviving there wasnt many other options to enjoy the game. My crew of half a dozen or so has a dozen vehicles and tents loaded with gear from scavenging towns, other peoples camps and choppers. A couple of times our base was found and we would have to spend hours relocating to another base in the middle of nowhere. Any time we want to go anywhere it takes half an hour before your at your destination ready to do w/e. Add into that unannounced server restarts and our biggest enemies are wasted time and losing vehicles to the server. We got so good at not dying we didnt actually do anything for hours on end and the only way we died was to hackers.

The only real options we have left for fun are

-mess around with the vehicles in a dangerous manner, ie we have a death rally planned to travel most of the map. whoever reaches the end alive wins. We will lose many vehicles in the attempt.

-Start from scratch. when you die, dont get a buddy to pick you up and give you gear. this goes against my nature as i always want to use every tool at my disposal. I ended up joining some friends just getting into the game and have had some fun ( apart from people camping the hills with 107's cutting short our adventures)

-have fun directly at other players expense, im not just talking about a KOS policy but deliberately killing people or messing with them for the fun of it. I wont shoot people as they spawn or hack though, thats crossing the line. Conning players has got to be the hardest but most entertaining way to be a bandit, sure shooting someone will piss them off, but what about tricking them? Making them think you are friendly then betraying them can be hilarious and there is no penalty if you succeed. There is always the same penalty for failure though. I think we should steer away from nerfing bandits and focus more on adding things for survivors.

Give people a reason to want to work together other then another gun and potential liability. Add teamwork stuff to the game, Some sort of reward for killing zombies maybe, The ability to boost onto a high roof, Greater ability to save someone from death, things like blood transfusions. A bounty system for killing bandits, encouraging a third faction to develop... hunters.

[Chiefmon 93]

Stopped reading here, OP doesn't even know that ratios and fractions are supposed to be divided. It should be a 3:2 ratio

I actually fixed those mistakes in my other post, I had neglected this one.

[Chiefmon 93]

I kill people and don't even take their stuff. Analyze me next!

[propain666 7]

Who are you to say what people would and wouldn't do?

I can see this being an issue in a real apocalypse, there are a lot of people that would love to go on a shooting spree in an apocalypse situation.. and there would be no respawn. Are you saying everyone in real life is nice and dandy, but everyone in DayZ is an ass? Be more naive.

Yeah, it´s a little known fact that in the event of a (IRL) catastrophe the outskirts of all major cities and military installments are lined with civilian snipers killing people randomly...

[Kamron 1]

PLEASE GO TO THIS UPDATED THREAD:

http://dayzmod.com/f...lapse-of-day-z/

I see forum members constantly posting about penalties against bandits. I notice a very wide schism between the Pro-PvP and the Anti-PvP. This post is an ATTEMPT at bridging the schism by explaining the underlying psychology and logic behind being a bandit and by showing the basic flaw in balancing bandits with survivors.

The biggest problem with the Bandit issue is the disproportionate ratio of Bandits:Survivors. Right now I would have it pegged at 6:4. This leads to what I would call 'The Bandit Dilemma'. Here is Survivor Bob. He is scavenging and surviving. He sees a survivor across the street in Cherno. What can he do? He has 3 choices: Evasion, Diplomacy, and Elimination.

1. Evasion: Simply avoid the other player. This is often not feasible since they will usually see you first or at the same time. Risk^{Relative chance of loss compared to gain} :None Gain:None Loss:None As you can see, there is no risk in a successful evasion, but cannot be relied on, leading to our intrepid survivor to the other two choices. SUCCESS YIELDS NOTHING TO BOTH SIDES
   
2. Diplomacy: Try and talk to the other and forge an alliance. This is, for many, the best outcome. Both players gain a better chance of survival, but at the risk of death on their first encounter. They could gain a companion, or they could be shot on sight. Risk:Med-HighGain:High Loss: Increasing relative to life length The loss in this one is unusual. If Bob is a new player with just a bandage and a flashlight, death is not a big loss for him. If He has a helicopter waiting outside of town, a gillie suit, and a GPS, death would be a huge loss. So, the more progress He makes in this game, the higher the risk with diplomacy. SUCCESS YIELDS GAINS TO BOTH SIDES
   
3. Elimination: Attempt to kill the other player as expediently as possible. IF I fire first, I have a low chance of death. A n00b with only a Makarov can kill an experienced player with a rifle if they can get a good burst off before the other player has time to respond. This decision will prevent the other player from harming Bob. Also, the other player could have better loot on him. Risk: Low-Med Gain:Variable based on location Loss: Increasing relative to life length Bob open firing on the other player could yield excellent loot, especially if they are further inland where the better equipped survivors loom. This is not discounting the chance of a super player on the coast or a n00b on the NW Airfield, but is instead relying on statistical tendencies. The CHANCE of death is lower than risking diplomacy even though the loss is equally severe. If they BOTH choose elimination, one or both will die. SUCCESS LEADS TO GAINS FOR ONE, DEATH TO THE OTHER
   

So, what should Bob do? Anyone who has taken a Economics class has surely heard of the prisoner's dilemma. It's the same as the Bandit's Dilemma. 2 prisoners are called on to testify against each other. If they both stay silent, they both get 1 year in prison. If they both talk, they both get 5 years in prison. If one talks and the other doesn't, the silent one gets 20 years and the talker goes free. Both are naturally inclined to talk to avoid the 20 year sentence, but they could both get the 1 year sentence if they work together. The problem is, much like with the Bandit's Dilemma, they have no idea what the other will choose.

Early game, the logical choice is to work together. Even if you die, you lost only an hour of play. Late game, everyone will logically choose to kill each other. If you die, you lost 5 hours of play. I myself adopted a shoot-on-sight policy when I went to the NW Airfield because I didn't want to lose all my stuff. (Thankfully it was abandoned, so I did not have to kill anyone.) For the good of both, they should work together. Late game, an extra sniper providing cover fire is a great advantage. But what if he shoots you instead? He would get all your stuff and you'd respawn kicking yourself for trying to be diplomatic.

Here's the flaw in balance: The more items a player gets, the more reason they have to kill anyone who gets near them. The less they have, the better reason to be diplomatic. So we are stuck in a world where, through natural selection, Bandits are well armed and the diplomatic are either constantly killed or are forced to take up banditry as a form of self defense. If EVERYONE stopped being bandits, everyone would prosper. But now we are moving toward a exclusively PvP world. When the ONLY way to become fully armed is through banditry and shoot-on-sight tactics, the bandit population will only grow.

Back to survivor Bob:

B=Bob S= Other survivor D=Diplomacy E=Extermination

BD/SD- Both call out friendly and salute. They team up and exchange supplies. The other survivor is low on food but has tons of soda, Bob has tons of cooked meat, but is low on water. They both benefit and continue on, covering each other and scavenging. Working together, they eventually get a car repaired and set off on a grand adventure.

BD/SE- Bob waves and is promptly shot in the face. Bob dies.

BE/SD- The other survivor calls out friendly and Bob empties a M1911 into his chest. The other survivor dies and Bob picks his corpse clean of supplies, making out with more food and water than he could consume. He comes across a repairable car later, but doesn't have the time or inventory space to repair it.

BE/SE- They open fire on each other. Bob kills the other survivor and survives with 1000 blood and a broken leg. He doesn't last long against the zombies that heard the gunshots.

That is the Bandit's Dilemma in a nutshell. This does not take into account the jackasses who kill for fun. Seriously, those guys are asshats. WHO KILLS A SURVIVOR 5 SECONDS AFTER HE SPAWNS!? YOU HAD NO REASON TO WASTE A SNIPER ROUND ON ME! Also, for those interested, just gonna put this here: Yeah.

Also, please comment if you feel you have any additional insight on this subject.

i agree that the game is skewed towards Bandits, i myself favor diplomacy in the game as well as real life, but i don't want to die so i'm forced into a bandit style of play. Trusting only those whom i've known previously to playing DayZ :/

[MyOwnInsanity 0]

Great work, Chiefmon! That stuff is scientificly tested.

Very true, Junos. In a "real apocalypse" people would help each other. I mean, what did the imprisoned to in the death camps? Why didn't they simply try to kill each other for the leftovers? That's right! Charity makes it much easier to survive with an external threat. In the death camps, the Nazis were the external threat. In DayZ, the zombies are. Also cooperation makes it much safer to survive in real life, rather than if you piss everyone else off by killing somebody.

How can you compare a situation involving 50 survivors on a landscape competeing for scarce resources to one speicific minority group of people being forcibly reomved from society by an organised government? Talk about comparing apples and oranges right there.

The reason they didnt kill each other for left overs is because they were part of a community before they were imprisoned and remained as such, and then ofcourse the fact that they had a fiarly constanty supply of food. Yeah they were prisoners and mistreated by they knew when their next meal would be. Imagine being thrown in jail with your friends and given a rationed amount of food, would you harm one of them so you could eat their ration even though you both had enough to survive? Plus being part of the community this would have been discouraged.

In a DayZ like situation (keeping with the current theme) you have 50 indivduals that have watched society fall, have no idea if they'll find their next meal and need to be vigilant to avoid the infected. Try now imagining you are creeping through a town knowing that if you make too much noise you'll alert the infected nearby and most likely be killed. You see an armed survivor a few feet in front of you with a can of food and some water look in the other direction, you havent eaten for days and dont have anyone with you but you have a knife. Knowing that if he refuses to help you, you might not last much longer what would you do? Completely different scenarios.

One final note, in what way has this stuff been scientifically tested? No science was presented here. Whats been presented is a list of possible scenarios revolving around gamer interaction within DayZ, pop psychology at its best.

Edited July 26, 2012 by MyOwnInsanity

[Komotez 29]

My philosophy (assuming you are alone)

1. You are unarmed? then i wont shoot

2. I will kill you for food and ammo

3. I don't want you running around with guns that could kill me

As for the whole 'don't shoot newbies' thing, i am in a grey area. You guys don't know the mindset of the killer. Personally if it is griefing/target practice, then i think that is a foolish waste of ammo. If the bandage/painkillers are needed and ammo is plentiful then i see no problem with parting with 1 round for these medical provisions

[elliotle 6]

The stats on the main page concerning the bandit/survivor ratio don't take into account all the survivors who unload their one Makarov magazine into another survivor and get slaughtered by zombies. You have to get 3 kills to be a bandit. Not everybody survives that many interactions with other people on this game.

[Professional N00b 347]

Honestly there's only two reasons why I became a bandit.

1) I don't know anyone else personally who plays this game and everyone I meet shoots me in the back, so teaming up doesn't work.

2) Just surviving by myself isn't too difficult once you get basic supplies. Having good equipment becomes pointless at this point and the game loses replay value.

To remedy the second one, I decided to take on more interesting prey to increase the challenge and make the game more fun again. Course, I don't ever shoot people who are unarmed or people on the coast, just people going to military camps or towns that are deep inland.

If I get killed then that simply means I got bested (unless it was a hacker) and wouldn't really mind having to collect all my survival stuff again. It's just a game and this is what makes it enjoyable, the thrill of thinking that you're always being watched. That every field you cross could have a sniper just waiting to blow a nice hole through your head and every town you crawl into could have a full team of assault rifle weilding bandits just waiting for you to come in the door.

That's where the excitement comes from, if you ask me. The zombies, by themselves, become boring after awhile.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Professional N00b