Moral values and Dayz - A Discussion

[Atanar 31]

"It's the set of the game mechanics","if you don't shoot first you get shot", "everyone is a threat for you to loose your gear". That's what this community seems to largely agree on when someone whines about being killed.

Let me introduce you to the peace-war-game (http://en.wikipedia..../Peace_war_game), a variation of the prisoner's dilemma, but with an example in dayz:

2 People meet in a town. They may have diffrent levels of gear, but they don't know that. Now, we have 3 possible scenarios:

A: Both are friendly to each other. Noone get's shot, they walk their way. They both suffer a small loss of not improving their equipment, let's call it a 0 on gear for both, because not improving your gear just a little bit isn't too bad, but they can both contibue on collecting better gear.

B: Both shoot. One dies and the other one looses a lot of blood. He improves his gear a little bit, but he now has maybe better gear and probably less health, maybe he also dies because of the alerted zombie. I call that a -10 for the guy who dies and a -2 for the one who lived (cause in most scenarios you get nothing useful for risk of loosing it all, and especially the winner of this fight probably had better gear anyway).

C: Only one shoots, he has no risk in doing so and improves his gear for free, so that's a +3 for him. The other guy looses everything, so he has a -10.

So the overall outcome on A is 0, B is -12 and C is -7.

Now why do people in dayz always choose to shoot, resulting in the worst scenario for both? Because they fear they get in scenario B and they don't want to give up the advantage.

So what's preventing them from going for scenario A?

Or maybe, let's take a nother moral theory. Let's do the golden rule, or better Kant's first categorical imperative:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

You want to make it law that everyone must shoot you when he sees you? You like being shot? No?

So why the "shoot on sight"?

I tell you why: Most of the userbase are mindless annimals, conducted by socienty and materialism to only values objects. None of the bandits care a bit for moral if there is no police or afterlife-punishment that enforces it.

I tend to want to explain this by refering to evolution: The whole body and mind is just constructed by the laws of selection and mutation. If you are the strongest animal in the herd, you are the one to reproduce and to bequest your aspiration for superiority over other to your descendants.

One last point I want to make: I am pretty sure in a real apocalypse, those morals would matter. Because if the surviving people recognise you as the one who breakes the moral laws, they will expell you from community. And in the real world you can't survive on your own if you get sick you die, unlike in Dayz. I would propose making the survival part more requiering teamwork. Maybe Custom skins for everyone based on their game code would be very nice.

(in this post I exclude the CoD-kiddies that just go for the murder-stats, because they are basically psychopaths and I don't want to meet them in real life)

Edit: re-reading this post I notice that I exaggerated a bit on the bandit part. I should not have used such generalisations.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Atanar

[01da 218]

Whats the point of this?

[Atanar 31]

The point is to hopefully explain what's wrong with the game/respectively with the people who play it. And by wrong, I mean the "wth did that guy shoot me I did nothing to him"-feeling.

[01da 218]

You are just way overanalyzing a game & players. People just kill you either for loot or for teh lulz.

[federik21 42]

NO:

This game is perfect as it is.

[brownfella@hotmail.co.uk 15]

Hand over your fuckin beans bitch before I shoot! : )

[Priceless 154]

This is one of those things that cant be explained. Why try to make an equation out of it?

[Tsyn 215]

First off, the first paragraph of your post pissed me off. You're trying to make yourself look superior by insulting everyone else's education level.

Second, your theory is busted for a very simple reason: You're not interacting with people from the same mindset. Some are thinking of theirselves, others are thinking of their fellow survivors (like myself). I can personally say I have murdered several people that haven't even seen me or interacted with me. Why? Because I'm carrying two survivors that have no gear, and I'm the only one capable of protecting them. My reasoning is this: Other people are concerned about their gear, and improving their gear.

Let me elaborate.

Myself and two survivors are going to the airfield to gear themselves. They are completely unarmed. When we get to the airfield, there's already someone there. I spot them first. That gives me the chance to take them out without them hearing, seeing or being able to shoot at me or the other two unarmed survivors with me. I kill him. Scenario is -10.

Same scenario, I see him, I don't kill him. I wait for him to loot and log. We've wasted our time completely, and we'll say my group gets a -5 or -10 since technically, we lost gear.

Same scenario. I see him, I attempt to interact. He gets spooked because there's three of us, he fires and kills me. The two unarmed survivors can do nothing, so they die too. Wouldn't that be -30?

All scenario's aside. Human reaction is to think of themselves or the people they're looking after. It's human nature, embedded in long lines of DNA that can't be changed. The way in which they handle the situation is based off of personal experience in my eyes. After let's say 30 years of being on earth, you learn that anyone is going to fuck you over if they reward is big enough.

I guess I'm done now.

[Miragenz 71]

I used to be friendly, and ended up in some fun adventures, fix up a bus and cruise around.

Nowadays i get killed by everything and everyone, even when i spawned a minute ago, have no makarov, not even an axe, tell the guy in voice chat im unarmed and there is no reason to shoot me.

[federik21 42]

This is one of those things that cant be explained. Why try to make an equation out of it?

can you make an equation to demostrate god do/doesn't exist?

[Vanglory 72]

I love watching over-analytical players waste their time writing these huge walls of texts.

[KWilt 157]

Interesting observation, but I'd like to point out that I don't believe that the idea realistically applies to DayZ.

The main hinge of your argument would be the morality aspect, as resources are limitless within the confines of the game, so the peace-war-game doesn't really stand up.

Now, maybe it's a personal bias because I'm a tad bit offended by your comment, but I don't see the userbase as 'mindless animals' and as a bandit, I can quite honestly tell you that I do care for morality. However, it's the blur where morality comes between good and bad.

Take this as an example: I own a variety of firearms. I keep them for sport and safety. If someone were to come into my house unannounced, I will immediately perceive that as a hostile interaction if they have no right to do so. I will grab my firearm, and depending on if and how the situation escalates, I would have no problem with shooting a man with my weapon. Given these interactions, I would rule my actions as a 'good' judge in morality. However, the starving family of the burglar might possibly perceive my actions as a 'bad' judge in morality. Granted, it's a possibility that they might sympathize with me, but as you can see, there is a blur where good and bad are both the same and not the same in morality.

To take this into a perspective in DayZ, let's go through the motions again. I'm traveling, come across a survivor with a gun, and whether he see's me or not, I will become initially 'hostile', but only for my own security. In this situation, however, if I want to make sure to keep myself feeling safe and secure, my best chances are to fire immediately without addressing the survivor, rather than trying to talk him away. In a game, it's much easier to spin 180 degrees and fire off half a magazine of automatic rounds, than it is in real life. If I reveal myself, my adversary in this situation has the chance to do so. So, do I take the chance and possibly get myself killed, or do I remove the hostile, completely securing my safety?

Now, you might notice, there is one vital point in my above situation. If the survivor is armed, this is my immediate conclusion. However, when I see a survivor defenseless (or with an axe or crowbar) I'm not quite as quick to jump the gun and put a bullet in them. This is where the morals come in. I'm not a savage animal. I only take on what I perceive as threats. And yes, even a Macaroni Knight. I've had many people one-shot me with that gun back in the early days of my playing when it was a spawnee item.

So, that's my reason for why I do my thing. Not because I'm materialistic, because I'm not afraid to lose my items. Not because I'm narcissistic, because I want to have a high kill count. I just don't want to be known as the fool who let the guy I let go shoot me in the back. Had it happen twice in this game, and I've refused to let it ever happen again. It's completely fact that if I can shoot you, you can shoot me. Maybe not so much if we bring anti-materiel rifles which hit from a klick away into the equation, but I can kill you with my M16 just as well as you can kill me with your Makarov. You could see me just as easily as I can see you, and if you don't give a signal of friendliness (which, realistically, there aren't any in this game) then I'm not going to chance it.

---

And to the players who are sitting here, refusing to actually intelligently discuss the topic, just leave. Seriously. He's not asking for us to change or anything. He's just stating his opinions. If you want to counter his testimony with facts and examples, go right ahead. Otherwise, just keep your stupid 'lol n00b' comments to yourself and get the fuck out of here.

Edited July 23, 2012 by KWilt

[Atanar 31]

First off, the first paragraph of your post pissed me off. You're trying to make yourself look superior by insulting everyone else's education level.

I am sorry, I will get rid of it.

Second, your theory is busted for a very simple reason: You're not interacting with people from the same mindset. Some are thinking of theirselves, others are thinking of their fellow survivors (like myself). I can personally say I have murdered several people that haven't even seen me or interacted with me. Why? Because I'm carrying two survivors that have no gear, and I'm the only one capable of protecting them. My reasoning is this: Other people are concerned about their gear, and improving their gear.

Let me elaborate.

Myself and two survivors are going to the airfield to gear themselves. They are completely unarmed. When we get to the airfield, there's already someone there. I spot them first. That gives me the chance to take them out without them hearing, seeing or being able to shoot at me or the other two unarmed survivors with me. I kill him. Scenario is -10.

Same scenario, I see him, I don't kill him. I wait for him to loot and log. We've wasted our time completely, and we'll say my group gets a -5 or -10 since technically, we lost gear.

Same scenario. I see him, I attempt to interact. He gets spooked because there's three of us, he fires and kills me. The two unarmed survivors can do nothing, so they die too. Wouldn't that be -30?

For starters, you just completly ignored that he also can choose not to shoot at you. You also use a specific example. That's not how you can get practical moral laws. At last you gave an way too high number for your second and third scenario. Yes, it isn't good for you that you loose gear, but the same number as if someone with gear died and reaspawned with nothing an the coast? Common! And -10 for 2 people with nothing on them?

All scenario's aside. Human reaction is to think of themselves or the people they're looking after. It's human nature, embedded in long lines of DNA that can't be changed. The way in which they handle the situation is based off of personal experience in my eyes. After let's say 30 years of being on earth, you learn that anyone is going to fuck you over if they reward is big enough.

I guess I'm done now.

I do not only agree to that, it's the essence of my opening post.

[Atanar 31]

I love watching over-analytical players waste their time writing these huge walls of texts.

I do not waste my time when I enjoy a good discussion. You on the other hand do waste more time than me with this post of yours.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Atanar

[phorest 54]

Sigh.

Must people look too far into things?

[Vanglory 72]

I do not waste my time when I enjoy a good discussion. You on the other hand do waste more time than me with this post of yours.

They're both a waste. B)

[Atanar 31]

Interesting observation, but I'd like to point out that I don't believe that the idea realistically applies to DayZ.

The main hinge of your argument would be the morality aspect, as resources are limitless within the confines of the game, so the peace-war-game doesn't really stand up.

Time is always a limited resource. And vehicles are, too.

Now, maybe it's a personal bias because I'm a tad bit offended by your comment, but I don't see the userbase as 'mindless animals' and as a bandit, I can quite honestly tell you that I do care for morality. However, it's the blur where morality comes between good and bad.

Take this as an example: I own a variety of firearms. I keep them for sport and safety. If someone were to come into my house unannounced, I will immediately perceive that as a hostile interaction if they have no right to do so. I will grab my firearm, and depending on if and how the situation escalates, I would have no problem with shooting a man with my weapon. Given these interactions, I would rule my actions as a 'good' judge in morality. However, the starving family of the burglar might possibly perceive my actions as a 'bad' judge in morality. Granted, it's a possibility that they might sympathize with me, but as you can see, there is a blur where good and bad are both the same and not the same in morality.

To take this into a perspective in DayZ, let's go through the motions again. I'm traveling, come across a survivor with a gun, and whether he see's me or not, I will become initially 'hostile', but only for my own security. In this situation, however, if I want to make sure to keep myself feeling safe and secure, my best chances are to fire immediately without addressing the survivor, rather than trying to talk him away. In a game, it's much easier to spin 180 degrees and fire off half a magazine of automatic rounds, than it is in real life. If I reveal myself, my adversary in this situation has the chance to do so. So, do I take the chance and possibly get myself killed, or do I remove the hostile, completely securing my safety?

That's the basic problem of application of moral values. A lot has to do with assuming the "most likely" circumstances in order to be able to do any action at all.

Now, you might notice, there is one vital point in my above situation. If the survivor is armed, this is my immediate conclusion. However, when I see a survivor defenseless (or with an axe or crowbar) I'm not quite as quick to jump the gun and put a bullet in them. This is where the morals come in. I'm not a savage animal. I only take on what I perceive as threats. And yes, even a Macaroni Knight. I've had many people one-shot me with that gun back in the early days of my playing when it was a spawnee item.

So, that's my reason for why I do my thing. Not because I'm materialistic, because I'm not afraid to lose my items. Not because I'm narcissistic, because I want to have a high kill count. I just don't want to be known as the fool who let the guy I let go shoot me in the back. Had it happen twice in this game, and I've refused to let it ever happen again. It's completely fact that if I can shoot you, you can shoot me. Maybe not so much if we bring anti-materiel rifles which hit from a klick away into the equation, but I can kill you with my M16 just as well as you can kill me with your Makarov. You could see me just as easily as I can see you, and if you don't give a signal of friendliness (which, realistically, there aren't any in this game) then I'm not going to chance it.

---

And to the players who are sitting here, refusing to actually intelligently discuss the topic, just leave. Seriously. He's not asking for us to change or anything. He's just stating his opinions. If you want to counter his testimony with facts and examples, go right ahead. Otherwise, just keep your stupid 'lol n00b' comments to yourself and get the fuck out of here.

[Alex067 4]

You're bringing psychology into a game? Okay then, let's correlate that to a real life apocalyptic situation.

2 strangers find each other in a town.

Let me emphasize the important segment in that sentence. 2 STRANGERS. Let me try again. STRANGERS. Do you honestly, in your right mind, think that 2 strangers, in a world infested with zombies, where the most abundant of resources such as food and water are now scarce, you think that those 2 strangers are thinking: "HM, WELL IF I DON'T SHOOT THIS STRANGER I FOUND MOMENTS AGO, IN A TOWN WITH LITTLE TO NO WATER OR FOOD AND FILLED WITH ZOMBIES, I SHOULD JUST NOT DO ANYTHING AND LEAVE HIM IN PEACE, YAY:)"

Lol christ.

[Atanar 31]

Sigh.

Must people look too far into things?

Yes. Or you can just go and live with your amish people if you don't have any curiosity. You may think this is absurd to try to make conclusions on a game, but I rather view it as a unintentional social experiment with intresting results. What happens if you put people in a certain set of parameters and let them make decisions based on that? A friend of my sister does a serious study on communication in WoW. Why not observe dayz?

Curiosity is what made the internet possible.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Atanar

[DryGulch 32]

Someone took an introduction to psychology and has an internet connection and then wants to apply it to the mechancis of a video game that can never fully realise the scenarios he is half hazardly discussing. All this in a vain attempt to make a high brow attempt to stop people from shooting him in said video game. That's cute.

Edited July 23, 2012 by DryGulch

[Nashy08 8]

Do the care bears not realize this is a game? People think it's boring because they're always getting killed, I think it's awesome and gives a feel of constant danger. This game would be boring if everyone was friendly. Oh, we have all our supplies now, let's hide in the woods. What, no zombies? Hmm, what now?

[phorest 54]

Yes. Or you can just go and live with your amish people if you don't have any curiosity. You may think this is absurd to try to make conclusions on a game, but I rather view it as a unintentional social experiment with intresting results.

Curiosity is what made the internet possible.

... What are you talking about?

People don't choose scenario A because, firstly, killing other people is fun in the game. Secondly, people shoot on sight because they want to either keep their own loot as they can't be bothered/don't want to get back their gear or they just want the other person's gear. It doesn't go much further than that.

Plus all you've done is make up a bullshit scoring system for the three scenarios in order to back up your little theory.

Edited July 23, 2012 by phorest

[Wiltrold 0]

I used to be friendly, and ended up in some fun adventures, fix up a bus and cruise around.

Nowadays i get killed by everything and everyone, even when i spawned a minute ago, have no makarov, not even an axe, tell the guy in voice chat im unarmed and there is no reason to shoot me.

This is exactly what bothers me... When I started playing a month ago, I was able to talk to most people over voice channel and get a small group together. I still try to talk to people, but in 9/10 cases, they end up starring in my face for 5 seconds without an answer and then shoot me.

I had a lot of fun in the beginning RP'ing with people, helping them out. Now, I can't even get them to talk. They just shoot me in the face even when I offered my help to them.

[Atanar 31]

Someone took an introduction to psychology and has an internet connection and then wants to apply it to the mechancis of a video game that can never fully realise the scenarios he is half hazardly discussing. All this in a vain attempt to make a high brow attempt to stop people from shooting him in said video game. That's cute.

No, I did not. All my knoledge from my ethics course about 7 years ago. I was just asking myself why people play this game like they do.

And I actually enjoy shooting other people or helping them whenever I want, and I am okay with being shot and I don't want to change the game much.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Atanar

[DryGulch 32]

No, I did not. All my knoledge from my ethics course about 7 years ago. I was just asking myself why people play this game like they do.

And I actually enjoy shooting other people or helping them whenever I want, and I am okay with being shot and I don't want to change the game much.

I've seen too many attempts on this forum, using poor psychology /sociology, to call people who shoot them 'psychos'. Maybe, I should just stop opening those threads. The integrity of my desk is in danger with the amount of times I have to bang my head on it.

Edited July 23, 2012 by DryGulch