The Bandit Dilemma: An Inner Look at the Economics and Psychology of Banditry and the Inevitable Collapse of Day Z

[Chiefmon 93]

This is my favorite part. "The data and trend do not support my claim, but they will! You just wait and see! So lets ignore the data and instead I'll just throw out some random speculations and baseless predictions but since my post has some charts they will seem more valid."

Why don't we just wait until the data exists and do an actual analysis? Since none of the data or trends seem to support any of the claims you're making, don't you think it's a bit premature to start drawing ridiculous conclusions about the "inevitable collapse of the game?"

The recent influx of players isn't that massively imbalanced compared to where it was a month or two ago. The game went from 75k to 150k and 150k to 350k with just as much fervor and that was well long enough ago for these people to have fallen victim to your inevitable-banditry theory, yet banditry and murder rates continue to decline.

What I am saying is that it DOES support my claim. This is me clarifying how the data relates to my theory because, at first glance, it appears as though it is contrary to my theory. Please note that this whole theory is based on the following postulate: players start off inexperienced and don't immediately jump into banditry. THIS COULD BE WRONG AND I ACCEPT THAT.

Secondly, to wait for the problem to appear is to be ignoring the purpose of prediction. To do what you are saying would be like, and this is hyperbolic comparison, to demand that we wait for water levels to submerge america before we decide whether or not the sea levels are rising. I am working with the data I have to draw my conclusions: game theory, logic, basic psychology, banditry rates over time, population rates over time.

Thirdly, the current banditry rates, as of 9:34 PM CST is at 17.28%. This is APPROXIMATELY 1 in 6. Do you think that 1 in 6 FIRST TIME PLAYERS kill another player in that life? I personally doubt that.

THE FOLLOWING IS SIMPLY AN EXERCISE IN MATHEMATICS:

If I had a good estimate of the banditry rates of first time players, then I would have much more evidence for my theory, but for the purposes of this exercise, let's ASSUME that it is closer to 1 in 12. Now let's assume that first time players make up 10% of the current population. The math leaves us at a basic experienced bandit rate of 17.59%. THIS IS NOT A BIG DIFFERENCE. However, the variables I am giving are hypothetical. My point is this, we are dealing with a system that has evolving variables. The way most people would view the statistics are as flat rates, but with a growing base value it leads to deceptively* low rates.

Another example:

There is a virus that takes 1 week to gestate before symptoms appear. It appears in a town. The town has a population of 300 people. 3 people, or 1 percent have symptoms appear every day. Suddenly the town's population doubles. Now there are 600 people but the rate is still 3 people a day. You would claim that the virus's infectiousness was going down. I would claim that it would catch up in 2 weeks. THIS IS THE POINT I'M MAKING.

*Before any English-Major smartass points it out, yes, I know that 'deceptively' is a meaningless word. However, it is contextually meaningful in this situation.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Chiefmon

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Secondly, to wait for the problem to appear is to be ignoring the purpose of prediction. To do what you are saying would be like, and this is hyperbolic comparison, to demand that we wait for water levels to submerge america before we decide whether or not the sea levels are rising. I am working with the data I have to draw my conclusions: game theory, logic, basic psychology, banditry rates over time, population rates over time.

Except we actually have data that supports rising temperatures, decreased surface ice and increased melts, etc. and therefore we can predict an eventual rise in sea levels.

Your analysis would be the equivalent of doing studies and finding a decreasing temperature trend, increasing surface ice, decreasing melts and saying "Yeah, yeah but we think it's going to get hot anyway so just trust us, okay?"

You are correct about the point of prediction, but your predictions are supposed to be based on data and analysis of that data, not on unsupported speculation and gut-level guesswork.

There is a virus that takes 1 week to gestate before symptoms appear. It appears in a town. The town has a population of 300 people. 3 people, or 1 percent have symptoms appear every day. Suddenly the town's population doubles. Now there are 600 people but the rate is still 3 people a day. You would claim that the virus's infectiousness was going down. I would claim that it would catch up in 2 weeks. THIS IS THE POINT I'M MAKING.

And I already refuted that point. The population of DayZ didn't "suddenly double." It has been rising dramatically for months. If experienced players were inevitably going to become bandits, we would by now be seeing the increase you predict. But, we're not.

So until we do I don't think anyone has any reason to buy into your analysis or predictions unless they just happen to want to join you in a fun little guessing game and hope they're right. But that's not statistical analysis and educated prediction, it's just guessing and you don't need fancy charts and graphs and data to do that. You can just guess whenever you want.

I plan to update this thread every week with actual data, and if the % of bandits and death-by-PvP is again lower next week than it was this week I think you're going to have to try really hard to convince anyone that some day soon that trend is just going to magically reverse the game is going to collapse in upon itself in a frenzy of unmitigated banditry.

Edited July 26, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[gizm0 96]

Except we actually have data that supports rising temperatures, decreased surface ice and increased melts, etc. and therefore we can predict an eventual rise in sea levels.

Your analysis would be the equivalent of doing studies and finding a decreasing temperature trend, increasing surface ice, decreasing melts and saying "Yeah, yeah but we think it's going to get hot anyway so just trust us, okay?"

You are correct about the point of prediction, but your predictions are supposed to be based on data and analysis of that data, not on unsupported speculation and gut-level guesswork.

And I already refuted that point. The population of DayZ didn't "suddenly double." It has been rising dramatically for months. If experienced players were inevitably going to become bandits, we would by now be seeing the increase you predict. But, we're not.

So until we do I don't think anyone has any reason to buy into your analysis or predictions unless they just happen to want to join you in a fun little guessing game and hope they're right. But that's not statistical analysis and educated prediction, it's just guessing and you don't need fancy charts and graphs and data to do that. You can just guess whenever you want.

I plan to update this thread every week with actual data, and if the % of bandits and death-by-PvP is again lower next week than it was this week I think you're going to have to try really hard to convince anyone that some day soon that trend is just going to magically reverse the game is going to collapse in upon itself in a frenzy of unmitigated banditry.

I have no issue with your predictions about the stats, however I do find it odd that even with the stats, most players I try to interact with trys to kill me.

[Virfortis 111]

While this is true in a psychology class, it is not true in DayZ. Players do not stop to think about these options, option instead to shoot because it's easier.

Also, any PvP stats you've read up to this point have always factored deaths vs. murders, which is false when applied to PvP only encounters as the stats allow for PvE encounters as well. The REAL stat we need to focus on is the odds of what occurs in these encounters. When the player sees another player, what happens? It's no small secret that unless it's at a very great distance and they have both been running, one will shoot the other. Why? Incentive. We have a murder count, a gun, and a generation of games based around the concept of "walk around, fire gun" that creates a cultural stigma of paranoia in which the socially awkward, angst driven male that is the "typical" gamer will have no problem deluding themself into the belief that they know how the world will work. This is why MMOs have restrictions on PvP, because the developers know that gamers in general are too out of contact from the concept of thought and reality that the moment they're handed a BB gun, they'll shoot their own father instead of a Radroach.

THAT is why the PvP rate is such an issue.

[Squirreli 14]

...

It's no small secret that unless it's at a very great distance and they have both been running, one will shoot the other. Why? Incentive. We have a murder count, a gun, and a generation of games based around the concept of "walk around, fire gun" that creates a cultural stigma of paranoia in which the socially awkward, angst driven male that is the "typical" gamer will have no problem deluding themself into the belief that they know how the world will work. This is why MMOs have restrictions on PvP, because the developers know that gamers in general are too out of contact from the concept of thought and reality that the moment they're handed a BB gun, they'll shoot their own father instead of a Radroach.

THAT is why the PvP rate is such an issue.

Would you care to give some sources to back up these stereotypes you brought up? To me this seems like you've been reading up on too much propaganda about the evils of gaming. I greatly disagree with your post and am tempted to call you, Sir, a troll.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Players do not stop to think about these options, option instead to shoot because it's easier.

If they choose shooting because it's easier, that implies they have weighed other, harder options. Which means they do stop to think about it. But, because they opt for the action that you arbitrarily decry, you denounce them as being thoughtless. Because they make a choice other than the one you would have made, they are a "problem," right?

Every single one of your posts is the same arrogant tripe. You're way of playing the game is a sign of care and patience and intelligence and maturity and anyone else who doesn't enjoy the game in that way must obviously be a low-born peasant who is too weak to resist the urge to give into their baser and disgusting desires.

You sell yourself as an "old school gamer" yet stand in unwaivering defense of the status quo that MMO's have only established in the last 15 years. The original multiplayer games, the MUDs of the early 90s, had far harsher penalties for death and loss in PvP. You could lose month's worth of equipment, week's worth of XP and hour's of travel time for one mistake. This was devestating. I've seen grown men cry over a death in one of these games. These game became niches, because most people just couldn't deal with the stress and emotion of that kind of loss.

And THIS is why MMO's have restrictions on PvP. It has nothing to do with keeping the low-born rabble under control, as you imply, and everything to do with marketing games to an audience that wasn't willing to accept consequences for their failures. MMO marketing departments saw a population of players that weren't willing to match their wits & skills against other players and face the proverbial music if they came up the loser, so they took those parts out of the game. Even XP penalties and decaying corpses eventually went away. All you had to do was click a button and "Voila! Good as new."

They wanted all the win with no lose. Give me gold and give me shiny items and give me a backpack full of awesome equipment and give me, give me, give me but if you dare for a moment think you can take anything away when I fuck up, I'm going to run off to the forums and scream until I'm blue in the face and tell all of my friends how awful and terrible your game is.

It goes right along with the "everyone gets a trophy" generation. Which, again, is a recent phenomenon and not old school in the least. Nobody loses. There are no losers. Just "runners up." So maybe you don't get the best stuff, but we promise you will get stuff and nobody will ever be able to take it away from you and you can curl up with it at night and suck your thumb until you fall asleep on your giant pile of loot and items because that's all that matters. Now give us more money, chumps!

Also, any PvP stats you've read up to this point have always factored deaths vs. murders, which is false when applied to PvP only encounters as the stats allow for PvE encounters as well.

Right, because the primary critique on the forums from people, including yourself, is that the PvE portions of the game are insufficiently interesting or compelling and that is why people choose to PvP instead, devolving the game into "nothing but a deathmatch."

Yet, the stats show that participation in PvE makes for the vast majority of in-game interactions.

The REAL stat we need to focus on is the odds of what occurs in these encounters. When the player sees another player, what happens?

No. Looking at those stats will tell us nothing but the story of Cherno and Elektro, where the vast majority of unintentional interactions occur. They say nothing of the many veteran players who choose to avoid contact with other players altogether which is a big part of the game.

If people are playing to stay out of the way of other players and play their own game with their friends, again it is a contradiction to the claim that the game is an all-out deathmatch and everyone eventually devolves into human-hunting barbarism. So it would be convenient for you to exclude this population from your statistical analysis, but it would also be disingenuous to make claims about the state of PvP as it relates to the overall activity level in DayZ without considering their presence and numbers. Personally on my best survivor - 38 Days - I went for a ~14 day stretch without seeing another player.

I would not be surprised to find that MOST people play the game this way - stick with friends, avoid strangers, survive and accomplish goals. Which seems to be exactly what people like you say you want.

Yet, when the stats show that's exactly the case, you ignore them and claim doom anyway.

We have a murder count, a gun, and a generation of games based around the concept of "walk around, fire gun" that creates a cultural stigma of paranoia in which the socially awkward, angst driven male that is the "typical" gamer will have no problem deluding themself into the belief that they know how the world will work.

Oh, Virfortis. You can always be counted on to fit some baseless commentary on the gamer class system into your posts. Once again you belong to the master race of gamers. I'm sure your life is completely angst-free, right?

And here again you accuse them of being a "typical gamers" while you yourself sit in defense of a very, very typical model for PvP in online games.

YOU are calling for a typical game, Virfortis. DayZ is atypical as it is, and far more old school in its approach to PvP mechanics than any recent online game. It goes back further than you, so instead of comparing it to the games from which it actually draws heritage and inspiration, you compare it to what you know.

Edited July 26, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[alsmir 255]

Laws of economics and psychology don't apply to computer games. Simple as that.

[phorest 54]

Pretentiousness in this thread is overwhelming

[Chiefmon 93]

Laws of economics and psychology don't apply to computer games. Simple as that.

...

I'm sorry, did I miss something here? Please, walk us through your thought process as you play DayZ.

[xximrtwoixx 104]

Laws of economics and psychology don't apply to computer games. Simple as that.

This is untrue, game theory applies to any type of competetion and most if not all games have some inherint type of competition in them. I agree to a point that the economic equations or the state of mind of a player while playing the game is disassociated from "reality" but I would argue that this is only the case because while gaming they are in an "alternative" reality. This alternative reality forces players to act in ways that are disassociated from reality because it shares nothing in comon with the standard normative society we now exhist in. The fact that the two realities do cross over as the player exhists in both is what makes things messy, especially in a project like Day Z where at its base level it is trying to provide a back drop where players can have authentic experiances. The seperation between the game reality and RL is less finite in this setting and some players expect normative socialized behavior because of this and are upset when they don't get it.

I and many others believe that current behavior is authentic as in the game's reality normative society has been destroyed, so you get individual or group behavior as varied as the individuals you meet. This doesn't mean everything is totally random, people will always play to maximize their own return. For some that return is serious or rigid and only includes their success for others it includes "fun, entertainment, lack of boredom" etc so they take actions accordingly. A sandbox allows everyone to assemble their own formula for their return, and as DayZ is a sandbox thats what people are doing.

Day Z's in game reality is made by the players, if the normative behaviour is shoot on on sight then thats what it is. If people really have an issue with it they can simply stop doing it, this is playing against their own interests but thats what standing for morals often is. You don't get a cookie when you don't break into your neighbors garage every day I don't think you should be rewarded for acting in a way you view as moral. If all these people acted in the way they advocate and there are really that many of them then maybe the normative behaviour would change. I doubt it though, without some semblance of society most people will not be diswaded from acting soley in their best interests.

Edited July 26, 2012 by xXI Mr Two IXx

[Flatline 32]

When players see only bandits flourishing, they too will become bandits, if only out of self defense. Right now, it's not so bad, because there is a steady stream of new players flowing in, keeping the balance. I've noticed that few veteran players are pacifists. When the flow stops, we will be stuck with servers full of people who all want to kill each other for resources or out of fear of being killed. Once again, I am not arguing for the omission of Banditry. It just needs to be fixed, fast. If EVERYONE is PERCEIVED as a bandit, everyone becomes a bandit to defend themselves. There is too much potential to have the situation snowball and cause the PvP in the game to explode. It will no longer be PvE with some PvP, it will just be a massive free-for-all in a sandbox... with some zombies.

For those of you who think that would be awesome, it'd suck for the bandits too. You will no longer have easy prey. Every survivor you come across will fight back. It's a classic example of too many predators, not enough prey.

What should we do? I have no idea. I wish I could claim to have the perfect solution, but I can't come up with a single answer that would please everyone.

I just made a comparatively tiny thread on the prisoners dilemma and Day Z before seeing this thread, and I agree with you on many things. However, I do believe the answer to what you call "the inevitable collapse of Day Z" is pretty obvious. While banditry should not be punished in any form, cooperation has to be made more valuable. In a real apocalypse, you would come across far more situations where an extra hand would mean the difference between life and death. I am afraid to suggest any kind of "balancing" because it shouldn't be balanced in the normal sense, but the gains from cooperation should at least be obvious enough to actually hesitate before blowing someone away. That is not the case today, which is why I keep suggesting more group/co-op focus (And Rocket has said co-op incentives are a big focus).

[malphos101 71]

I just made a comparatively tiny thread on the prisoners dilemma and Day Z before seeing this thread, and I agree with you on many things. However, I do believe the answer to what you call "the inevitable collapse of Day Z" is pretty obvious. While banditry should not be punished in any form, cooperation has to be made more valuable. In a real apocalypse, you would come across far more situations where an extra hand would mean the difference between life and death. I am afraid to suggest any kind of "balancing" because it shouldn't be balanced in the normal sense, but the gains from cooperation should at least be obvious enough to actually hesitate before blowing someone away. That is not the case today, which is why I keep suggesting more group/co-op focus (And Rocket has said co-op incentives are a big focus).

I agree with you 100% (though i disagree with your font color 10000%). The problem with all these threads about balance, however, is that alpha is not meant for balancing. Alpha is meant for implementing as many features as possible and testing for compatibility/relevance/usefulness of said features in relation to the ideals of the game. Its pretty common knowledge that it is way too easy to survive. Balancing that is something best reserved for the beta when all the cool features are in place because if you spend your entire alpha balancing current features, nothing new gets tested and you end up with less material for your games beta.

[Larryhud 0]

Hi, apologies late to the party with this reply. Unlike perhaps some people I find this topic fascinating. I have not bought ARMA 2 yet so obviously not played the mod. However I have seen many, many hours of narrated youtube video as I wanted to get a feel of the game before I potentially bought it. This of course makes you think about how you would play it should you buy it. Therefore the evolution of tactics within the game is vitally important, for long term playability at the very least.

These are my conclusions and much of the early ground has been walked on of course so bear with me.

When spawning, there is no risk to trusting a random survivor as you have nothing to lose. As the character evolves there is more and more risk to trusting anyone, therefore it becomes a zero-trust exercise. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that there are no visual clues to trust/deception (no body language) and that a brand new player can kill an experienced player easily if surprised. Therefore the evolution trend must be towards bandit factions. In fact trust becomes so paramount that you would only trust your friends and even then you may have an inner circle! Everyone else would be shot on sight.

As larger groups clearly have advantages over smaller groups, the natural evolution would be to have larger and larger factions, until perhaps there were just two? I have not played EVE but it does sound like it has evolved like this also.

Obviously there are many factors that affect this theory. This would only evolve this way if the playing population were generally static and experienced. If there was a continual influx of new players then it may stay the same (with the premise that the most experienced players would get bored and leave). Also, there are always players that jerk around in every MMO, but it is relatively small and cannot be avoided so I have do not think this has a bearing.

If the zombie threat increased it would makes the environment threat more than the opposing player which may drive co-operation? Perhaps combined with fewer resources? All fascinating.

[{CQF} PFC Demyan 43]

You sir, are brilliant. I love this thread the detail you provided - I would like point out one thing. We have more true survivors than bandits, and it will stay that way forever. We have The Coalition, and it is not going anywhere.

[willbrunelle 33]

This post is brilliant. I enjoy the application of actual analysis and theory to games; demonstrating that they create this kind of complex societal simulation and decision-making is critical to demonstrating their value as a medium. Your post reads like a proper thesis, and I was very, very impressed. You have my beans.

I'm also generally inclined to agree with you, at least in part. As the game currently stands, in its Alpha/conceptual state, teamwork is both the best option and the least desirable to pursue. It's dangerous to attempt within the confines of the game, as it is high-risk with potentially high-loss/low-gain results. Therefore, we resort to meta-gaming (which I enjoy, and Rocket heavily encourages, but most people [understandably so] don't want to do) in order to find a clan, two or three friends, or just someone who can give us a blood bag when we need it (Trusted Medics of the Wasteland, we owe you a great debt <3 ). I myself was motivated to find a clan in under 48 hours of gameplay, simply because three player encounters later, I had only managed to collect four flashlights, four bandages, and four boxes of painkillers, and I lost 75% of all of them. You see my issue. I had yet to discover where it's easiest to find a means of self-defense, how to properly search for gear, etc., yet others who knew all of this and had the best gear were too frightened of my Patrol Pack to actually call out and offer me a hand; they simply killed me so that I could not be a threat to them.

Many players say that this is a logical option, because we cannot then find a gun and immediately become a threat to them, after they've let us run out of view (because we were unarmed at the moment of contact). However, the flaw there is that if you are encountering a freshly spawned character, there is an extremely high probability that you're very far south or east, near the shoreline. And in DayZ, every spawn point is in the far south or east, along the shoreline. Therefore, there's a chance, and a good one, to boot, that the player you shoot will simply respawn near to you once more, only now they're out of your sightline and very possibly going to discover a gun. And when they get that gun, they're going to go looking for the guy with that really impressive-sounding rifle that just killed them, because his stuff is better than the fresh spawn's stuff, and as we all know, in a game about stuff, you've got to have the best (stuff). [sorry. Tangent here that will probably only be appreciated by other RT Podcast listeners.]

Basically, killing fresh spawns serves no purpose, as they're only going to come back to find you, and there's a chance that when they do, they'll be better equipped to get the drop on you. However, I've digressed from the main thread, here.

I had to find people to play with in order to survive, and they taught me that once you're all geared up, as you argue, ChiefMon, the only way to protect myself 100% from losing my gear was to kill on sight. Now, I don't fault them for that, because they're completely right; if I see someone else before they see me, assuming they're hostile and eliminating the potential threat is much wiser than giving away my position, as the other player may have someone on overwatch that will eliminate me before I have the chance to become a threat to them. It's a positive feedback loop, and one that plagues this game only because there is no reason to work together beyond getting your first, basic set of gear.

However,

This game has a long future ahead of it, and Rocket has many plans to augment the currently existing features in order to create a fuller, richer world that offers more options to the players than the current Alpha version does. And only one of these added features is needed to both argue against your thesis and assuage your concerns: the addition of player fortresses and structures.

As the game stands now, Bob the Survivor can find a tent (and we'll assume for the purposes of this [extreme] hypothetical that tents are working properly and saving equipment without duplicating or erasing anything), load it up with stuff (perhaps even that [dickbag] guy from the woods near Otmel that shot Bob as he was running away being chased by a horde of zombies with nothing other than a FLASHLIGHT...'s stuff)*, and then surround it with sandbags, tank traps, and barbed wire to protect it. However, Bob must leave an opening so that he can access his tent, which means he must leave an opening where other survivors can access his stuff, as well. Barring that measure, all that Bob can do is "ghost": completely surround his tents with multiple layers of player-built fortifications, and then switch to a different server to exit, and hop back to his "home" server once clear of the area. And Bob must follow the same formula to go back in, as well. And even then, his stuff isn't secure, because any other [dickbag] survivor that wants to get to Bob's belongings can also follow Bob's [dickbag] example and "ghost" to another sever in order to gain access to Bob's [dickbag] fort.

The point, here, is that in the current Alpha build of DayZ, Survivor Bob can only protect his belongings by being a [dickbag] dickbag. And it doesn't even completely protect those belongings.

However, with the addition of instanced, cooperatively built fortresses, such as the underground lairs that Rocket has been so excitedly talking about in interviews lately, Bob now has a solution to his problem! And, in addition, Bob has a reason to reach out to other players and cooperate, and, most importantly, they have achieved a reason to not shoot him for doing so.

The players have both received what is most necessary to combat the Bandit Dilemma: a GOAL.

I therefore offer a counterpoint to your thesis, Chiefmon:

When all players are placed in an equal position to benefit from diplomacy (i.e. given a GOAL), they will naturally be inclined to choose peace over battle during moments of initial contact, and the Bandit's Dilemma will have a solution.

The addition of fortresses as an instanced, one-server-only location where goods can be stored and access can be truly limited (within reason; I'm sure some sort of Breaking & Entering functionality will [and should] be added) creates an environment in which those who engage in diplomatic, peaceful interactions can achieve a greater goal than the acquisition of stuff. They can achieve a mutual benefit much greater than the gain of a weapon or can of beans, as now they are in a position to create a home, in which they can store (non-duplicating, un-hacked) weapons, stockpile food and ammunition, and actually become a team. Right now, teams either have never-ending supplies (i.e., tents from before they became bugged, which are now dupe-bugged) or no way of saving supplies at all (i.e., vehicles that move unpredictably at server restarts or tents from after tents became bugged, which delete everything inside themselves).

When a new environment is created, with player structures and, as Rocket has openly called it, an "endgame" functionality, there will be a purpose to diplomacy. As it stands right now, you are correct; there is either too much risk in teaming up, or, as others have pointed out, the only point in teaming up is to have more guns to kill fresh spawns with. However, in the future, more important version(s) of DayZ, especially the Standalone, players will have goals beyond getting geared up initially, and will have a reason, ideally many reasons, to continue pursuing diplomacy after they have gathered many good weapons and accessories.

*I apologize for the use of anecdotal evidence. I'm just tired of [dickbags].

Edited September 2, 2012 by =FTS= Dovahkiin Vokun

[Kocot 35]

A very well constructed post indeed. You can have some of my Heinz for that.

However, I personally believe that bandits do indeed make the game what it is.

The constant state of awareness you have to maintain whilst you're around other players. You know the one I'm talking about.. The one where you don't lower your gun. Ever.

Yup, that's the one.

That's what I like about this game, and why I keep coming back to it, again and again. The thrill of hunting, or indeed being the hunted.

Personally, I'm a survivor but I have no qualms about eliminating any threats to myself or my party.

[harvey44 5]

Ye all that 'intelligent' shit definitely points to the decline of dayz. Are you looking forward to when it moves into beta too?

Ok i'll play along. In my experience everyone is a survivor until they kill on sight or quit when they get bored surviving. Besides stomping around surviving is fuckin retardedly easy and exceptionally boring.

I better add, stop whining its an alpha lol. Yes I'm joking, it's not an alpha.

[{CQF} PFC Demyan 43]

Here's looking at you Harvey! You and your words thar noone will take seriously :)

[Inception. 9443]

It's funny, because really, a bandit isn't one who murders players without a good reason.

[Maxgor 2314]

I skimmed through the OP thread and while I would agree with some aspects, it's not going to be the end of DayZ. I've seen a number of players around here that try and purposefully do things the harder way. Sure, just being a murdering dick is easier, but once people work themselves into groups, it'll create something better right there. People will learn that if they want to solo, bandit might be easier, though if they want to group, getting a group of bandits together will be harder to do if they aren't all friends. I mean, who is going to trust a bandit? A leaning towards grouped survivors could be something we end up seeing and putting people into larger groups, can detour solo bandits from just being all kill crazy and steering away from them.

[{CQF} PFC Demyan 43]

There are factions of bandits out there. Beware...

[Moriarti 8]

I miss the very early days where everyone would group up, form convoys, and there would be tense group moments. And two bands coming face to face was actually tense and not just a firefight.

It was like a survival drama with zombies. Everyday was a new adventure, and I loved every minute of it. That's what DayZ has started to lose. (But, damn it, I still get into a badass Christmas Convoy chugging towards Cherno in hopes of plunder and zombie-slaying.)

This is such a damn good game that people get into these raging debates about economics and psychology. That happens in few to no other games. This is such a great community. :)

[jetao2008@hotmail.com 175]

Let's enjoy playing some BattlefieldZ because honestly i don't think anything can be done about this.

Playing as a survivor won't grant "Bob" anything, but playing as a bandit? Different story.

This game has become a sniper simulation a long time ago, i don't care if people agree or not, that's what i think anyway.

You found a survivor, he didn't shoot you? Honestly, 90% chance (i'm just throwing a random HIGH number here, i don't care about the exact number, my point is that this happens almost in every encounter) that A ) he doesn't have a weapon, B ) he doesn't have ammo, C ) he's waiting for you to turn around to shoot you, D ) he is Jesus (very unlikely).

It's impossible to NOT get attached to your stuff, so you spent 10 hours finding good weapons and supply, you're gonna risk everything? No, you're gonna shoot everyone and everything that moves.

I like PVP, what i don't like is playing Battlefield in a bigger map with inferior graphics (compared to the newer games).

We don't need to remove PVP at all. And we also don't need penalties for people who want to play like bandits.

Like i said before, playing as bandit has it's benefits.

People need to see a benefit from playing as a survivor otherwise nothing is gonna happen.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Fenrig

[Faceman Peck 93]

I see no dilemma....bandits are part of the experience. Sorry Op, but I did enjoy your dissertation on the issue; I found it poignant and articulate

[gywidion@msn.com 80]

The problem is that death in the game isn't taken too seriously. Just respawn and play again! But if you knew that if you make a dumb mistake, you won't be able to play for, say 30 minutes, you probably wouldn't make that dumb mistake because you'd really fear for your 'life'.

(Of course, this should only apply to people who have played for quite a while)

I've played games in ArmA2 where being killed meant you were out for the rest of the night and once you go through that, you become extra careful and nervous.

I completely agree. Value for you character is needed.

Folks in the real world are more careful because if they mess up it is over. In Day Z it is just a delay.

I think making things like a broken leg require time to heal. As well as, mentioned by Rocket, bandaging being more of a temp fix would add a lot.

In general Death and Risk has to be a real factor in the game. It is not right now.