Incentive not to kill other players, limited loot.

[She'llberight 2]

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.

I just turned in a 5k word essay arguing against that point, video games don't encourage violence, people have been blaming media for their actions for centuries, that's why they banned books in the 1800's.

[G33z3r 13]

op: this game is not meant to be realistic. take it for what it is. a fun escape from RL.

psych 101: if you enjoy playing this mod for w/e. keep playing however you want. forget about gear. forget about being 3733T. just explore and kill stuff and have fun doing it!

[Road Dogg 0]

I just turned in a 5k word essay arguing against that point, video games don't encourage violence, people have been blaming media for their actions for centuries, that's why they banned books in the 1800's.

Again you just read the part of my post youre going to argue against and ignore the rest of it. I was joking I know video games dont make violent people I even said i wasnt arguing with you just spewing nonsense thats spread in the media.

[lurkallday@gmail.com 0]

I would still kill everyone :0

[kingfury4 65]

Another one of "these" threads.We don't need some system that makes you not want to PK if you get attacked get ready to fight.

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

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.

You'd expect a zombie apoc would result in lots of crazy people and most players seem like they want to assume that role. Most of the nice people would be killed by the crazy psychopaths and it is time for the tough, badass hero to take a stand and KILL the bloody bastards.

But the game itself shouldn't take a stand.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Benjamin

[resident_leeonheart@yahoo.com 32]

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.

That would only punish real bandits and the game needs them. Wouldn't work on player killers and "lol" snipers since they kill for fun and don't bother to loot. :huh:

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

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.

1% are those who bought ArmA2 just to play ArmA2 (i.e. real military types)

[thepcv 32]

Let's limit what the bandit can pick up off the body that way he has to kill twice as many people for a chance at getting what he wants. Yeah, brilliant idea.

[SillySil 295]

Let's limit what the bandit can pick up off the body that way he has to kill twice as many people for a chance at getting what he wants. Yeah, brilliant idea.

How do you kill twice as many if you're already killing everyone you see?

[01da 218]

How do you kill twice as many if you're already killing everyone you see?

Kill everything twice.

[reaper12d 10]

I just finished discussing something similar to this on another post....

I don't think something physical should happen to the player if they kill other players, simply because in real life people like animals will form packs and kill those not of their packs out of need for security, protection, and want.

There is no real way for this game to take into account the human emotion that goes into taking a life or the effect of it. Many people could care less about taking another humans life as long as they feel it is justified in their own minds.

While I am not a fan of Bandits I do understand why players may choose that route, why go look for loot when I can just take it off the guys that just picked it up and ran off the airfield? That may be a real world reason or simply its because its a game people will do it because they think it is fun to grief other players.

Either way games are not real life and there will never be a way for people to feel any real emotion toward taking the "life" of a video game character.

Now as for an in game idea which this post is about I actually think a system of notoriety should come into play. I.E. the more players you kill the easier it is to find you as a bandit, kind of like the white dots people see for Zeds, now before people flip their lid over it obviously it would have a limited range (that way players don't just instantly know where you are and hunt you down from all four corners of the map you when you join a server) and everytime you perish your slate is wiped clean.

*Edited Continuation*

The justification for the visible "dot" would be that like any other story/game out there bandits will stake their territory and rarely venture far from it, which to me makes perfect sense.

[Landen 2]

incentive not to kill needs to be super zombies again, ones that dont just run to a gunshot for a second them come to dead halt, and ones that dont just wander to a noise for a minute then never move again.

i kill everyone, because p[eople betrayed my trust, as well the fact that zombies are harmless.

one time, i even offered a second gun to someone with a hatchet as my friend found a better one and had no use for my spare. no response, she slowly walked around the pews in the church while i aimed her down, as she exited the building, i walked towards the front of the church and she came sprinting in and axed me once, -6k health :( so i hunted her, and every one of her friends down in electro, and the zombies didnt pose a single threat, if anything they helped.

imagine the end scene in 28 days later in the mansion, where the main actor lets loose an infected person and uses it to his advantage, except that i had a whole town working for me.

secondly, i dont want to lose all my stuff to someone who is thinking the exact same thing, so i kill on sight, provided i have some backup, who can protect me from flankers.

people thoguht KOS was bad in 1.5 and sometimes before, but its bad now, and its only going to get worse the easier it is to avoid z's

in towns, the best guns need to not exist, AR's and anything other than makarovs need to only spawn in military spawns.

enfields winchesters CZ's and double barrels can spawn in towns, firestations and houses, but only moderately.

that way not everyone has an AR or barret sniper.

otherwise it will only be a deathmatch game forever

[A Bush killed me 189]

give me special abilities like. Spec to be a Doctor, gunsmith bullet maker, mechanic, clothing maker, cook. Have it show up when you target a person showing them what they are. Next time you might need that service and not just spray randomly.

[jimmy_mayhem@hotmail.com 1]

People get beaten/killed in regular riots... Because there is no authority to instill fear of consequences at that point... I guarantee you, if there were a real zombie apocalypse... Other people would be one of your biggest threats, and most people would KOS. Women would have it the worst for reasons I won't elaborate on. The care-bears would be the first ones getting shot for their supplies. In a zombie apocalypse, if I saw a guy around my safe haven and he had useful supplies... Would I KOS ? If that is the way things were at that time. It's better them than me. Limited supplies means, the less people around to soak them up. The better. It's only a matter of time before supplies became so low in supply that people turned on eachother. (Even the good ones).

And I guarantee you too, some people would do it for the fun, not the supplies. "Big brother is watching" mentality is the only thing that keeps people from doing things like this more frequently IRL.. You think people are good? lol. Some may be, and I feel sorry for those ones if a day like that ever comes. Many people are in for a rude awakening, of what people are like when theres no risk for being held accountable.

Reality is, that people killing eachother is VERY realistic. And people stealing from eachother is VERY realistic. What kind of sheltered world do you hide in? Parents basement is not a good example of the real world.

Limited loot is a terrible idea. And rationalizing, making an unrealistic feature, because other unrealistic aspects exist? Is flawed reasoning , in that increasing the unrealistic features is only going to compound the weaker aspects of the gameplay. No need to make this game poor-sport friendly like all the other games that already exist.

I am sure, WarZ will cater to your safety barrier needs.

All that said, bottom line is this is a video game. If you can't handle dieing and losing pixels and images of items... Perhaps Tetris/solitaire might be safer for you.

The stakes are high in this game, the threat is constant and high. These things make the game what it is, and subtracting things like that will make this game just another game like the rest. It would defeat it. The last time I played a game this fun was Ultima Online, during the dread-lord days, before they nerfed everything to cater to the care-bears that couldn't handle the cut-throat reality of completely free PvP.

It might suck, walking all the way up to the airfield after re-gearing only to catch one in the dome so that some 12 year old can eat my beans. But the day that freedom is no longer available in this game, this game will stink and I'll be back playing Blizzard games waiting for another DayZ/Ultima Online to come out.

Sad it seems, games like this are likely to eventually cave into the people afraid of PvP in the long-run, just for the sake of making $. Main Stream gaming is produced in a fashion that is much like hollywood film. They figure out what is safe, what sells in bigger numbers, and then they produce every single game under the same formula, which is why there is seldomly a game released that feels really "new" that hasn't been done before.

[sixbarns 217]

Seems like an incentive to shoot even more players.