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

[Jacomo (DayZ) 2]

Well, saying that DayZ is strictly PvP mod is bullshit. It's zombie horror survival mod. You can spend all your time by doing PvE (Survivors) and occasionally be forced to PvP (Bandits attacking you). And you know, PvP is not bad, it can be fun when theres a meaning behind it, but it is not the main purpose of this game.

Problem is that simple-minded shooter games fans are dragging this mod towards the "PvP-mod" label.

This mod is trying to be as much realistic as possible and the funny thing is that the most of those wannabe mass-ingame-killers would shit their pants when forced to kill real living being. There should be added some kind of system simulating the fear of killing another being and the weight of guilt. That could make the mod more realistic, prevent meaningless PvP and drive off idiots ruining the game for everyone.

The mod could finally head towards the shape it was meant to be. There would be camps of survivor bands, trading spots where players could trade and socialize, player secured forts, new factions and also bandits, but in less numbers, forced to be organized, doing raids. PvP with meaning.

[Chiefmon 93]

I think OP's got the right idea here. I agree on that banditry will only escalate and become uncontrollable. I don't see any incentive to be good in this game at all.

When I first started I tried to be friendly to everyone and had a lot of ideas about friendly team play and bigger goals in game. But due to many reasons be it hack, exploits, bug, and nevertheless banditry there just seems to be no reason to play nice with anyone you don't know in real life. There is the huge issue of trust in this game. In other games it is simplified by guaranteed protection such as a default team/alliance, trade screens, flags for PvP, friendly fire regulations, and even simply the ability to fled or not die so easily. Here in DayZ, you have so much to lose but so little to gain when you cooperate with strangers.

For example like your story of Bob working with that stranger to fix a car, what do you think would happen next? They won't be satisfied to just roam around inside a car. Are they going to take turns driving? Would the stranger not mind Bob suck at driving and crashing the car? The outcome of their cooperation only leads to conflict and ultimately the death of the two players. They'd also have one other thing in common in the end - they would cease to trust others in the future. As for Bob not being able to fix the car himself; he could just wait until someone fixed the car and kill those who fixed it with bonus loot. Now Bob has a brand new car he can ride around town - or he could use it as a trap and... You see where I'm going though.

It's the system that needs to improve before we would stop the mindless killing.

I also agree on your prediction of ultimate collapse of DayZ, but it felt unnecessary. All games rise and fall, once a game cease to be fun for someone they'd quit, the hype don't last forever. I had a lot more to say about shooting players for thrill but I'm scared that people might not take it lightly... But I will say this, there is always the ultimate reason behind each action - and it is 'pleasure/joy', which is the pushing force of everything in life lol.

I am not talking about the collapse of the game, I am referring to the collapse of the current system. IF the current trends continue, Day Z will still be played, but zombies would no longer be the focus of the game.

[Chiefmon 93]

tl:dr

players killing other players for whatever reason is the whole core part of this mod. sandbox.

I greatly disagree. If that is the core part of the mod, what do we need zombies for? I figured that the core is survival. Of course there is killing people, but coop can be a great substitute for that.

[DryGulch 32]

Oh look, it's more pseudo intellectual nonsense about a video game... riveting.

[xximrtwoixx 104]

OP great post, interesting read.

I think game theory is the perfect explanation of what is happening, and I also believe that KOS/Banditry will keep escalating it is the most effecient method for survival and natural selection is occuring as we speak.

I disagree that it will ruin the game/project though, it will simply limit the player base just as any game's gameplay limits its player base.

I think people need to realize that this is a proof of concept for a game/dlc that had to be made because no studio has the balls to release a standalone or mod that features this type of gameplay. No other game has a completely open sandbox, persistence, perma death, open pvp, and realistic damage. Its an alpha of a concept really, not of a game/mod, its something that was set up as bare bones as possible to show that players would be interested. The fact that so many players were and are interested kind of f'd everything up because infrastructure has become a main focus of updates to keep the steam rolling rather than content. We are providing market research more than alpha testing IMO.

As more content comes in the kos cycle will be disrupted as most players will find other things to occupy their time rather than going south to death match. It won't really ever stop though. I hope that developable skills/perks get added this will also help steer people toward specialization and grouping and add more value to an individual life later in the game when gear is stored up, this is also something Rocket has talked about. It will be more painful to lose your character though and I'm sure people will bitch even more, but thats what makes this concept great, death should suck.

Also zombies are never really the focus of a zombie scenario they are the catalyst that tears down society and the ever present slow simmering threat. People acting outside the confines of society and their struggle to remain "civlized" or "people" is the main focus. Thats what we are all going through playing day z, you get to decide how much you hold on to, no one said it was easy.

Edited July 25, 2012 by xXI Mr Two IXx

[Junos 57]

Chiefmon, I wish you hadn't started a new thread. That really wasn't necessary.

I don't think the problem is as big as you think it is. There are many different playstyles, different groups, different goals, etc. I do think life needs to be harder for bandits--it should especially be harder for them to operate in groups.

But let's be realistic: the sky is not falling. This "anti-game" is growing faster than anyone could have imagined.

Why don't you trust Rocket?! He knows what he's doing! If it weren't for him, we wouldn't even be here! This is all a fantastic experiment! It's a grand adventure! Stop worrying that things are going to change and that this is all going to go away. Be patient, sit back, enjoy the ride! We have a lot of wonderful changes to look forward to! Things are only going to get better from here!

[john@thesmileyone.co.uk 7]

The goal of the game is to survive. You only flourish at survival in this game when you learn to shoot on sight. I would say that lone bandits flourish the most, they dont have to deal with meta gaming infiltrations or "friends" who shoot them in the back, you just shoot on sight and you loot.

I left the last clan I was in just over a week ago having been teamkilled over and over for the best equipment and had tons of immature drama within the clan...and I have been alive the last 5 days.

p.s killing 5 second survivors is usefull when they have the bandages you no longer have because a tree decided to hit you when you were stood next to it, breaking your legs.

[Justin619 11]

if a bad bandit is hated for KoS, but people consider a "good bandit" a bandit who doesnt kill you, but makes you drop stuff or takes you hostage, and says this is the way people should be, then should the survivor be hated also if he turns around and kills the person who made him drop his stuff but didnt KoS? of course even if the survivor isnt a KoS kind of person, if given the chance, he WOULD conteplate killing this guy and would find it neccesary. if you compare this to the bandit killing him on sight, wouldnt it be found neccesary to kill this man on sight if he had to engage the survivor in some way?

[Leeu 38]

nice article. I'd like to see his analysis on a situation where the added variable is:

a disconnect penalty timer

(you all know, that issue rocket has a major hardon for) whereby people disconnecting from the game world (whether in or out of combat) has their character left in the game world for anywhere from 5 secs to 1 minute- and that bandit which you're now trying to avoid by disconnecting can leisurely walk up to your character (while you're disconnected) and a$$ rape it.

[sheephunter 19]

Totally agree with the OP.

[Vanz0r 16]

An interesting read and something I have thought about, the first 'solution' that crossed my mind was something used in UO.

UO used a colour coded system for players, red for murderers (bandits) grey for players who had harmed other blue players and blue for good guys who hadn't harmed any other blue person.

UO set the threshold for going red at 5 murders if I recall correctly and grey lasted around an hour or so depending upon the situation. If you are blue and you kill a red or a grey you remain blue.

This system allowed for bandits to be bandits and for 'good guys' to be good guys with the opportunity for plenty of PVP. Perhaps if applied to DayZ we could find that the towns become no go areas for reds and greys since the survivours are most likely to gang together there.

Obviously this is an artificial system and takes something away from the 'free spirit, survival of the fittest' notion that's so strong in Day Z but at the same time it does help to move the game towrds a more 'realistic' setting. In the 'real world' it is very hard for a human to kill another human, there's a natural inbuilt revulsion and difficulty - that's why so much time is spent training soldiers to kill - whereas in a game with little or no repercussions everyone can just blast first and ask questions later.

What I think such a system would lead to is the creation of servers where the population is for the most part 'good' working together to control the cities and rid the wilderness of bandits. For those players that like to 'farm' and play co-operatively this would be good and for those who relish the thill of the kill would provide more challenging targets.

In-the-meantime, I like everyone else with any sense of humanity, am forced to just kill every other survivor I see first...

[BrotherDoma 1]

From an economics student, well done! Totally agree with you that this model is appropriate and makes sense.

Those people saying it does not apply are either retarded or do not understand the concept. Game theory relates to human behaviour REGARDLESS of what they are doing, it DOES apply to people playing computer games because, well, playing a computer game does not make you act any less human in regards to decision making. Risk and reward is not exclusive to real-world interactions.

That being said, humans dont always act logically on this game. I utterly despise some DayZ bandits ^^ Not because of the ones who kill for gear, which I suppose makes sense, but the ones who kill when it is clearly not in their interests to do so. Yesterday I was playing with my friend and I heard him disclaim, "Oh my god, is that you or somone else?" I spun around to find a survivor standing next to my friend who shot me dead... Fair enough I get that he probably wanted my gear and beans. What I do not understand is why he walked up to my friend, looked at him, looked at me, then shot me. There is only ONE outcome to him approaching us and shooting one of us down. He gets killed by my friend the instant after shooting me. This means he dies, I die and my friend gets all his loot (he was loaded with supplies and a good weapon), and I can retrieve mine after I finally manage to slog my way back to where we were.

Where is the logic? If he wanted to kill us both and take our stuff, he should have stayed away and picked us off with his rifle; he could see us easily from the tree line, we were in a clearing. But if he shot because he felt threatened by us, why did he not try to hail us or even approach us in the first place? Logic fail, he lost everything and all we lost was the 30 minutes it took me to get back. If anything, we won due to the stuff we got off him. WHERE IS THE LOGIC?

Sorry, rant off. I dont understand why he did that ^^ It seems in some cases rational behaviour completely bypasses some people. As always there are exceptions to the rule.

Edited July 25, 2012 by BrotherDoma

[propain666 7]

nice article. I'd like to see his analysis on a situation where the added variable is:

a disconnect penalty timer

(you all know, that issue rocket has a major hardon for) whereby people disconnecting from the game world (whether in or out of combat) has their character left in the game world for anywhere from 5 secs to 1 minute- and that bandit which you're now trying to avoid by disconnecting can leisurely walk up to your character (while you're disconnected) and a$$ rape it.

Add a (repeat) connect timer aswell to get rid of the serverhoppers and it should be all good. 10 min between serverswitching should be enough.

[Squirreli 14]

Bandit's Dilemma assumes that you can not communicate and are not already in a group large enough. Taking previous groups and VoIP into account skews the balance even further to the bandit's advantage. Once you're grouped up, you have no need for other players and the risk-reward ratio of interacting peacefully with them becomes even worse. Usually these pre-organized groups are on VoIP and really self-contained. Anyone outside is a liability.

Also: As the game stands now, the obvious end-game, once you've tooled up, is to fight other tooled up players. For me this is the reason I keep playing the game. I love the immersion of it and the rushes the game gives me like no other game, but still, PvP is an integral part of that. If I really wanted to roleplay I'd want more tools for it from the game. Right now it is not wort it to roleplay much. Your mileage might vary.

Sorry if this had been covered. Tried to read all of the 2 threads' posts quickly, might have missed something.

[random51 172]

The OP left the most important metric out of the equation: FUN.

If you don't factor in the desire to have fun and that what a given person finds entertaining might differ from that of somebody else you can't make an accurate analysis of bandit vs. survivor, much less where that balance is heading.

If I find it entertaining to kill survivors I'm not going to care whether or not it is optimal behavior in terms of continued survival. In fact most people already know that seeking out PvP is a great way to die. They do it anyway because surviving indefinitely in the middle of nowhere is less entertaining than getting killed in a massive Cherno firefight.

[Muffinsforever 4]

This is how you post about pvp. Thank you.

I do agree, there is a problem when elimination is the the trend, I just wanna play and mess around, so I don't see myself becoming a bandit, though I will pop people if they are being aggressive. I want to help and group up, not just kill everything thing I see while camping in the grass, I did that enough in my old CoD days thank you very much (back when it was good)

I just hope more people see what they are missing when they just kill everyone they see. (It's also better to plot and make plans to kill everyone you meet in certain circumstances if shit hits the fan)

[Chiefmon 93]

Chiefmon, I wish you hadn't started a new thread. That really wasn't necessary.

I don't think the problem is as big as you think it is. There are many different playstyles, different groups, different goals, etc. I do think life needs to be harder for bandits--it should especially be harder for them to operate in groups.

But let's be realistic: the sky is not falling. This "anti-game" is growing faster than anyone could have imagined.

Why don't you trust Rocket?! He knows what he's doing! If it weren't for him, we wouldn't even be here! This is all a fantastic experiment! It's a grand adventure! Stop worrying that things are going to change and that this is all going to go away. Be patient, sit back, enjoy the ride! We have a lot of wonderful changes to look forward to! Things are only going to get better from here!

First off, I did not intend for the other thread to live. No one posted, then I realized I had put it in the Bandit forums and it should have been out here in General Discussion.

Second, the problem is that the status quo of this game is ONLY working because of the ridiculous growth. Once it slows, then the bandit concentration will keep on rising until it's all PvP in mentality i.e. no hope for diplomacy. This is what is called a 'Bubble' in economics. When the bubble pops, the ONLY successful groups left will be banditry groups. The fact that the game has been built on the unstable foundation of fast growth will lead to it falling.

Thirdly, of course I trust Rocket, but do you really think he even remotely expected this sort of popularity? Game design is hard, and ALL games need some balance. Now, I'm not saying this game needs much balance at all, it is an anti-game after all. But, it does need SOME. If it went for full on realism, then there would be no respawns, broken legs require two months real-time for healing, and a single zombie bite would be lethal. This is a mod made by one guy with one of the fastest growing fanbases I've ever seen. Right now, I think he needs to nip this problem in the bud before it gets out of hand.

The OP left the most important metric out of the equation: FUN.

If you don't factor in the desire to have fun and that what a given person finds entertaining might differ from that of somebody else you can't make an accurate analysis of bandit vs. survivor, much less where that balance is heading.

If I find it entertaining to kill survivors I'm not going to care whether or not it is optimal behavior in terms of continued survival. In fact most people already know that seeking out PvP is a great way to die. They do it anyway because surviving indefinitely in the middle of nowhere is less entertaining than getting killed in a massive Cherno firefight.

My Bandit's Dilemma theory deals with two survivors meeting each other and what they would choose to do in order to survive and how it would set the trend for the rest of their 'lives'. This is all working under my belief that this is a hardcore survival game. If you disagree, I would be happy to engage in a debate with you over some other medium than forum posting.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Chiefmon

[random51 172]

I just hope more people see what they are missing when they just kill everyone they see. (It's also better to plot and make plans to kill everyone you meet in certain circumstances if shit hits the fan)

We don't miss anything since we're playing with a group of friends we made before DayZ, people we've already formed relationships with, people we already trust, people we know aren't clueless when it comes to PvP.

That is something people who complain about the lack of teamwork, about shoot on sight policies seem to miss. There is a lot of teamwork going on in DayZ, we're just not inviting you to our teams. Complaining about it on a forum isn't going to increase your odds of getting invited. Advocating changes in the game to hamper open-world PvP isn't going to make you any friends worth having in-game.

Edited July 25, 2012 by random51

[mynameismonkey 25]

Prisoner's dilemma occurs when both parties know that co-operation will bring reward. This is not the case in your example. It is an assumption, and it is flawed.

Further, there is no death penalty in the prisoner's dilemma.

Further further, in DayZ, we have an iterated dilemma, we meet many players. Iterated prisoner's dilemmae require a co-operative strategy on first iteration.

Further further further, can you explain the peaks and troughs in the life expectancy, or are they just swirlies?

Further+Further, are you hinting at a Nash Equilibrium?

[Genki Dama 49]

The game is a simulation, it tries to replicate real life but ultimately falls short. This is why people kill others, because they can without any real problems. Just my two cent, I kill people because I can in DayZ, I never think:

1. Will I get in trouble?

2. Is that guy I just seen dangerous?

I just think:

"This guy has to die... NOW"

Edited July 25, 2012 by TheSeriesGamers

[sixbarns 217]

Everyone is a bandit in this game.

Even the biggest carebear would shoot someone in the back if they were give a chance. It's almost guaranteed if the guy they're aiming at has something shiny.

Anyone found in Cherno or Elektro should be treated as bandits anyway. Why players go there expecting to make friends is beyond me.

"WHO KILLS A SURVIVOR 5 SECONDS AFTER HE SPAWNS!? YOU HAD NO REASON TO WASTE A SNIPER ROUND ON ME!"

lol, OP is mad.

[Genki Dama 49]

Everyone is a bandit in this game.

Even the biggest carebear would shoot someone in the back if they were give a chance. It's almost guaranteed if the guy they're aiming at has something shiny.

Anyone found in Cherno or Elektro should be treated as bandits anyway. Why players go there expecting to make friends is beyond me.

"WHO KILLS A SURVIVOR 5 SECONDS AFTER HE SPAWNS!? YOU HAD NO REASON TO WASTE A SNIPER ROUND ON ME!"

lol, OP is mad.

I don't think he is mad, I think he is trying to help balance the game somewhat :)

Edited July 25, 2012 by TheSeriesGamers

[{sas}stalker 108]

Problem is you can't truly simulate loss in a game. At the end of the day you turn off the pc and goto bed, regardless of what happens you can never suffer real loss and thus there can never be a true deterrent to recklessness which is what banditory is at its base level.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

This may appear to be an encouraging trend, but I must say it is not. IF we assume my Bandit's Dilemma theory to be true, then we can assume that MOST of the new players coming in would not be bandits at first. This throws off the math of this experiment MASSIVELY. The theory includes that the better a player gets at surviving, the bigger the logic behind banditry.

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.

Your chart is an interesting roadmap of your personal subjective experience with the game. None of it matches up with mine, nor I'm sure many people's. You took one path and made certain decisions and had a series of experiences but just because you put them on a pretty graph doesn't mean they're anything but your personal story of DayZ.

And here again, your analysis of the "bandit's dilemma" is entirely subjective. Diplomacy isn't even an option for me, for example. I'm not interested in making new friends in the game or forming alliances and because I already have plenty of support diplomacy gains me nothing. It's not a strategy I will ever employ, nor one that's particularly interesting to me as a game mechanic period. I will not engage random strangers in negotiations because even if I can trust them not to shoot me, I can pretty much guarantee you I cannot trust them to play the game near me without endangering my life. I choose my friends carefully based on people I know and trust not to play like a lackwit and get everyone around me killed. Diplomacy doesn't exist in my game.

My choices are evasion, elimination, observation, espionage or manipulation.

You don't even mention observation & espionage - watching or stalking a player in an attempt to gain information about his companions or potential assets such as hidden vehicles or tents. This is a huge part of the end game for me and my crew.

You overlook manipulation as well - attempting to distract or disorient a player using tactics such as driving vehicles nearby or firing weapons in the distance to attempt to draw a target out into the open or scare them off or otherwise change or manipulate their behavior. Sometimes it's literally just taunting - scare them a little bit and make them think twice about what they're doing for no other reason than to see what their reaction is.

Still again you list gains from elimination when, for me, there are very, very few. The very rare chance that a player has NVGs, which is the only piece of loot I would bother taking off a body at this point, do not really enter into my decision making process. Elimination for me is essentially profitless. Evasion is always safer, and loot is not needed so the only benefit to elimination is the thrill of it.

In essence your analysis is simplistic and assumes that we all have the same motivations and value equally the same types of gains and losses in the game which is exactly the opposite of what happens in reality in DayZ - which is that pretty much every player has their own reasons for doing what they do. There is no common goal or objective so gains/losses are entirely subjective. You know what I value most in the game right now? Crazy-ass interesting things happening. That's it. I don't care who lives or dies or comes or goes I just want "stuff to go down" so I try to put myself in situations where that's likely to happen.

I gain memories, so no matter what happens I win. If I try to kill you it's because I think that might result in something interesting happening and if I don't it's only because I think that might be more fun. It's all one big gain to me. So your model breaks down almost immediately. I'm not weighing gains and losses anymore, I'm just trying to get myself into interesting scenarios and see how they play out. My values change on a whim.

[sheephunter 19]

Bandit's Dilemma assumes that you can not communicate and are not already in a group large enough. Taking previous groups and VoIP into account skews the balance even further to the bandit's advantage. Once you're grouped up, you have no need for other players and the risk-reward ratio of interacting peacefully with them becomes even worse. Usually these pre-organized groups are on VoIP and really self-contained. Anyone outside is a liability.

Also: As the game stands now, the obvious end-game, once you've tooled up, is to fight other tooled up players. For me this is the reason I keep playing the game. I love the immersion of it and the rushes the game gives me like no other game, but still, PvP is an integral part of that. If I really wanted to roleplay I'd want more tools for it from the game. Right now it is not wort it to roleplay much. Your mileage might vary.

Sorry if this had been covered. Tried to read all of the 2 threads' posts quickly, might have missed something.

Your first paragraph is an EXCELLENT point. Once you get grouped-up, you no longer need to go thru the survivor grind of finding all your gear...Just go to the group stock pile and resume popping noobs.