Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
She'llberight

Incentive not to kill other players, limited loot.

Recommended Posts

As an incentive to trade for items rather than just kill other players and take what they have, I think it would be a good idea to implement limited loot on players when they are killed.

For instance the bandit doesn't get to loot gear only whats in the backpack. After all, why trade if you can just kill and take everything you want?

What are your thoughts on something like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says I want their loot? Not unless they have a rangefinder on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

no no no , hell no.

Why would stuff magically disapear off a person just killing them? pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you all go on about it being "realistic" but if you were in a real life zombie apocalypse would you shoot another survivor just for fun? No. As realistic as you want the game to be, people playing a game are not acting realistically so in turn the game needs to limit people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no no no , hell no.

Why would stuff magically disapear off a person just killing them? pointless.

so your saying bullets only harm people, and that guns, canteens, and tin cans are bullet proof?

Edited by Orthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so your saying bullets only harm players and gun as well a canteens are bullet proof?

Backpacks are made from titanium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backpacks are made from titanium.

can I use my backpack as armor than?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you all go on about it being "realistic" but if you were in a real life zombie apocalypse would you shoot another survivor just for fun? No. As realistic as you want the game to be, people playing a game are not acting realistically so in turn the game needs to limit people.

Actually some people would snap and rather kill you then give you a chance perhaps they wont take your stuff but if youve gota better gun and I gun you down I better have access to that gun so no not only the pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can I use my backpack as armor than?

You could try it with your friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually some people would snap and rather kill you then give you a chance perhaps they wont take your stuff but if youve gota better gun and I gun you down I better have access to that gun so no not only the pack.

So you are saying that if i met you in an apocalypse RL you would shoot me because I have a better gun than you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that if i met you in an apocalypse RL you would shoot me because I have a better gun than you?

Guns or supplies - if it meant survival. It would be a far more primal, instinctual time; whether you believe it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I shoot you in real life, you you automatically have less money?

That's not the point, the point is. Would you shoot someone in real life? Answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that if i met you in an apocalypse RL you would shoot me because I have a better gun than you?

You ignored the rest of my post and just read the end. Honestly if I dont know you I'll give you your chance but at the first sign of betraying me id blow you away in an instant.

And again RL the best survivors are the ones who have "snapped" to the point to where they are cold unfeeling killing machines and not all will differentiate between human and zombie.

Also the gun thing was in response to your limited loot policy in this game if you get killed by me and I like your gun more its mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you wouldn't. Therefore this game is not realistic, if its unrealistic it needs unrealistic limits.

Edited by She'llberight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might though you never know because an RL apocalypse hasnt happend whos to say it happens we run across each other and im not walking around with a necklace of ears from both zombies and humans that ive killed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might though you never know because an RL apocalypse hasnt happend whos to say it happens we run across each other and im not walking around with a necklace of ears from both zombies and humans that ive killed?

I'm not attacking you personally but lets face it, 99% of the "gamers" playing this game are not the people who will be survivors in an apocalypse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not attacking you personally but lets face it, 99% of the "gamers" playing this game are not the people who will be survivors in an apocalypse.

My basement is apocalypse proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not attacking you personally but lets face it, 99% of the "gamers" playing this game are not the people who will be survivors in an apocalypse.

Ya never know cause them video games make people violent and almost everybody who commits a shooting was a "video gamer" and trained themselves sitting around playing games all day.

This post wasnt to argue that by the way just spewing the same nonsense that gets thrown around when video games come up in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might though you never know because an RL apocalypse hasnt happend whos to say it happens we run across each other and im not walking around with a necklace of ears from both zombies and humans that ive killed?

Maybe psychology knows? Cause people are herd animals and in times of crisis we band together? It's been like that since forever. Of course you will always get those who depend only on themselves but I'd never say that would be the majority.

If a zombie apocalypse would happen it wouldn't be the first catastrophe we're facing (although the biggest in scale) and wouldn't change our basic instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×