You, you and you. You are all part of the problem.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Words.

Somewhere, possibly in this very thread, I state something to the fact of, "I'm not a dick in real life, I just play one blah blah blah..."

If you review any 'insults', you may find that I usually only 'return the favour'. If someone posts something I disagree with, I might poke fun. I'm certainly not ever as directly insulting as this, and why? If you review your own post, I believe you got singled out for your opening like "my, aren't we the elitist fucktard"... You got what you gave, and then wonder why I act like a douche to you? I believe you had it coming.

Your FIRST POST called me out, rudely, and I took offense. I have posted hundreds (look! hundreds!) of notes on here, MANY trying to help the community along, and you come along with ONE post and call me names? What exactly would you expect?

You need to earn respect to get respect. You call someone an elitist fucktard, you're damn right they're going to come back at you. I guarantee you, if you had said "I disagree", our following conversations would have gone much more smoothly.

For everybody else - my post above with my 'meta gaming' idea was posted as an idea of what you can do in this game, and is free to use, and I hope you do. It's possible, a lot of fun, and will probably ostracize you from many you might call a friend. Use pieces from it, or as a whole, or as a part to a bigger pie. It's versatile. It works. Try it.

:D

[Munno 0]

I was responding to an OP.

Therefore, you started it.

Chaos theorem, dependent on initial starting conditions. Maybe if you didn't come off as such an elitist, and I as such a dick, we might not be here screaming abuse at each other.

I disliked your attitude, I responded in kind to my dislike. You disliked my disliking, and so you responded with dislike. I then proceeded to respond with dislike of your dislike, thereby inciting you to reply with dislike of my dislike, before I stated more dislike built upon my original dislike of your dislike of my way of playing. All in all, I think we dislike each other.

You need to earn my respect with your OP, before I give you any shred of mine. You wrote the OP: it is YOUR job and YOURS ALONE to ensure that nothing you say comes off badly, and where it does you should cover for it in post in a manner which amicably solves the problem between the two, despite the other person insulting you. Backwards-rationality doesn't work in a forum scenario, as it doesn't work in real life. First impressions matter, therefore the quality and general non-inciting-to-rage-ery of the OP should be taken into consideration.

From this analysis, I can glean that you wrote an OP in a manner which sounded unbelievably elitist and whiny to the opposite side, and as such I replied in a manner contrary to elitism: elitism is undermined by being talked down upon, not the other way around. An elitist will laugh in the face of anyone who goes "Well, I think this and that", therefore I opened with something guaranteed to get the attention of an elitist (aside from the obvious calling you an elitist fucktard).

I might have been a bit of a dick to you in my first post, but at least I didn't right the elitist OP.

If you weren't an elitist, you'd have tried to backup your posts by saying that you thought the other ways of playing were equally viable, although you disagree with them on a moral basis (which is what you do, there is no objectivity here at all). Instead, you act even more elitist by talking down to me as though I am a child and unworthy of your mighty presence.

You asked for a proper analysis, I've given you my analysis. Now give me yours from a relatively unbiased and much more unelitist standpoint.

EDIT: I forgot to mentioned, I actually agreed with a lot of the OP. I did not agree with your manner of approaching the subject in a way which is generally and DELIBERATELY downtalking to the opposing side, to discourage them. This isn't allowed in a real debate, it shouldn't be stood for on a forum debate.

[The Killing Joke 43]

You asked for a proper analysis' date=' I've given you my analysis. Now give me yours from a relatively unbiased and much more unelitist standpoint.[/quote']

How about this... I like the way you post. You seem to have a very strong opinion, and I respect that.

I don't necessarily mean to offend everybody, all of the time, but sometimes, people get offended. I like to post with titles that make people take notice. After all, if I had posted another "I have an idea" thread, it might get lost in the shuffle. This way, people say, "Hey! That guy is blaming ME for his problems! How dare he?"

In that way, you have actually helped me to get more of my message across, and for that, I thank you.

My OP was (and I'm happy to admit it) a very sensationalist way to say, "I would appreciate it if you wouldn't turn this into a deathmatch, just to prove that it could become a deathmatch." Somewhere, in my posts, you may actually find some socially redeeming qualities.

(You may not. It's certainly your prerogative to think I'm a jerk, and nothing more.)

I like to stir the pot. If I'm guilty of anything, it's certainly that. I hope my response comes off a little less 'elitist', and hopefully helps to clear the air a little bit.

[oktyabr 53]

The OP isn't even civil. Its straight-up insulting to people who play differently to the OP.

Haven't you ever heard the old saying "Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one and most of them stink?"

Sticking with that analogy if it stinks go sniff around somewhere else.

I'll take this moment to ask everyone to remember the forum rules:

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=200

[slimlacy 19]

Munno, you're also bashing the OP for "hating" on people who kill other people... Did you even read the OP?

He is bashing people who's whining about, that without a system to keep bandits in check, they will have to resort to going all out deathmatch. Right after having whined about they are getting shot on sight by other morons like themself.

He isn't anywhere bashing people for killing other people, because they make sports out of it and have fun with it, WITHOUT whining like small kids that got denied a cookie.

[The Killing Joke 43]

I'm happy to report that even weeks later, I'm still able to send people to this post. Let's hope people keep complaining about the deathmatch issue, or I'll be out of a job.

:D

[CrossShade 4]

I don't care about the deathmatch issue, not sure how players aren't able to tell if someone is a pker or not. Players camping high loot areas = Pker.

Players usually roaming about and just trying to loot high tier areas = 50/50

Players Throwing flares and screaming friendly? 90/10

[The Killing Joke 43]

I don't care about the deathmatch issue' date=' not sure how players aren't able to tell if someone is a pker or not. Players camping high loot areas = Pker. Players usually roaming about and just trying to loot high tier areas = 50/50. Players Throwing flares and screaming friendly? 90/10[/quote']

You're right, and it's all a matter of logic. If you're in an area of high loot, be on your toes and trust nobody.

There's a very good chance the guy you just saved from 100 zeds and have been working with for hours to clear your way to the airfield, and you're currently speaking to on teamspeak after having coffee and a threesome with him and his wife, is going to shoot you in the back of the head, once he has the opportunity.

Players need to do three things. Get used to it. Play smarter. Quit whining.

:D

[catgut 3]

I'm happy to report that even weeks later' date=' I'm still able to send people to this post. Let's hope people keep complaining about the deathmatch issue, or I'll be out of a job.[/quote']

Yeah, the fact that this same issue keeps being raised over and over again by different people with all different experiences and perspectives and the fact that you feel a need to keep on referring people to this thread is clearly demonstrating that the 'deathmatch issue' doesn't exist. It's so non-existent that you've needed to make it your job to tell people your unsolicited opinion about it.

Send me a postcard from wherever it is your reasoning comes from. In the meantime I'm going to KOS until the game gives me any reason not to.

[Disgraced 1123]

What's mocap???

I don't kill on sight... but I have...

[imagelesskjc 35]

Yeah' date=' the fact that this same issue keeps being raised over and over again by different people with all different experiences and perspectives and the fact that you feel a need to keep on referring people to this thread is clearly demonstrating that the 'deathmatch issue' doesn't exist. It's so non-existent that you've needed to make it your job to tell people your unsolicited opinion about it.

[/quote']

Your sarcasm is adorable.

[catgut 3]

Your sarcasm is adorable.

So's your condescension. Do you have a point?

[The Killing Joke 43]

Your sarcasm is adorable.

So's your condescension. Do you have a point?

Girls' date=' girls! You're both [i']PRETTY!

[imagelesskjc 35]

Your sarcasm is adorable.

So's your condescension. Do you have a point?

I was being sarcastic about you being adorable (This is condescension). It was also my point.

I just so happen to agree with OP, just like many others here in this thread. Maybe the reason why you don't see a bunch of people creating threads about our viewpoint is because we don't feel the need complain on an hourly basis. Instead, we go on other people's threads and debate with them.

[ward 8]

A number of issues here.

1. The root problem here is not the people going around shooting first. They are A problem, yes, but not the ROOT problem. Shooting first is merely the most logical and straightforward way to avoid being shot yourself.

Consider-

Chance of bad things happening to me/Chance of good things happening to me

(these are rough, bear with me)

Shooting on sight: 5/95

Exposing yourself and asking if he/she's friendly: 50/50

2. You're getting upset about being called an elitist fucktard, but you have to go back and read your original post. You /are/ being an elitist fucktard. The unwashed masses are the problem, but noooo, not you. Never. Have you even /seen/ how many posts you've contributed? Well, most of them are positive, so you're better than we are and yadda yadda yadda. You may not be intentionally trying to be an ass, but you're doing a terrific job.

Edited for clarity.

[imagelesskjc 35]

Girls' date=' girls! You're both [i']PRETTY!

But am I THIS pretty?

(This picture needs to be used more in the community. Its priceless!)

[catgut 3]

A number of issues here.

1. The root problem here is not the people going around shooting first. They are A problem' date=' yes, but not the ROOT problem. Shooting first is merely the most logical and straightforward way to avoid being shot yourself.

Consider-

Chance of bad things happening to me/Chance of good things happening to me

(these are rough, bear with me)

Shooting on sight: 5/95

Exposing yourself and asking if he/she's friendly: 50/50[/quote']

There's more to it than that. It's not that shooting first is the most logical way to avoid being shot by another player, it's that it's the most logical way to avoid dying in general. You don't need another player's help to avoid the zombies and get the supplies you need, and the gear he's carrying could be very useful to you. People shooting each other on sight isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem, which is that the game is not so harsh and unforgiving that your reaction on seeing someone else is often 'Hey, another survivor, I could really use his help'. To put it bluntly, other people are more trouble than they're worth. If the game were hard enough that you were likely to die if you go solo, people would be more willing to trust each other since they'd have less to lose ('I'm dead without his help, might as well try') and more to gain.

Personally I think the best way to do that is to make the zombies more dangerous, and more mobile, so they're always a threat and not just window dressing on important buildings. If you're constantly concerned with a horde showing up and eating your face, suddenly finding someone to team up with is a lot more appealing.

But in general, I do think it's the game mechanics that are pushing for a specific style of play, and that it's not purely players being terrible people that has created the dynamics currently in force.

2. You're getting upset about being called an elitist fucktard' date=' but you have to go back and read your original post. You /are/ being an elitist fucktard. The unwashed masses are the problem, but noooo, not you. Never. Have you even /seen/ how many posts you've contributed? Well, most of them are positive, so you're better than we are and yadda yadda yadda. You may not be intentionally trying to be an ass, but you're doing a terrific job.

[/quote']

This, pretty much. I have no problem with people having other opinions but if someone phrases their thoughts in a condescending and hostile manner I'm going to be sarcastic and hostile back.

The Killing Joke, you've got some interesting ideas and valid points here and in other threads, but your posts are by far the most abrasive and inflammatory I've seen on this forum, and that definitely damages the argument you're trying to make.

[The Killing Joke 43]

This' date=' pretty much. I have no problem with people having other opinions but if someone phrases their thoughts in a condescending and hostile manner I'm going to be sarcastic and hostile back.[/quote']

Understood... See below.

The Killing Joke' date=' you've got some interesting ideas and valid points here and in other threads, but your posts are by far the most abrasive and inflammatory I've seen on this forum, and that definitely damages the argument you're trying to make.[/quote']

If it keeps the conversation moving, then this is certainly an acceptable outcome. (Although, attitude should never go against logical points...) As I mentioned in another thread somewhere (which may have been eaten by the forum hackers) I'm not actually as big a dick in real life, but sometimes, I play one on the forums. Actually, come to think of it, I think that quote was in this thread at one point.

:D

As it is, this thread was not meant to be me pissing and moaning about people turning the game into a deathmatch. Far from it. I personally do not care about people's chosen play-style. What I cannot believe is how a person will change their play-style to "I will shoot you in the face as soon as I see you" and then have the audacity to say, "See? There's proof why it's all a deathmatch now!"

p.s. In the 350+ of my posts that were eaten by the forums shortly after the first time I had to defend this thread, I softened a bit. A kinder, gentler asshole, if you will.

;)

[catgut 3]

If it keeps the conversation moving' date=' then this is certainly an acceptable outcome. (Although, attitude should never go against logical points...) As I mentioned in another thread somewhere (which may have been eaten by the forum hackers) I'm not actually as big a dick in real life, but sometimes, I play one on the forums. Actually, come to think of it, I think that quote was [i']in this thread at one point.

What I'm saying is that aggressive, inflammatory posts make people more likely to simply ignore you, focus on the tone of your posts instead of their content, or disagree because they're put off by it. It doesn't matter how big of a dick you are in real life, it's about conveying your message without all the little games that make people want to ignore your message, or respond negatively just because they don't like your tone.

As it is' date=' this thread was not meant to be me pissing and moaning about people turning the game into a deathmatch. Far from it. I personally do not care about people's chosen play-style. What I cannot believe is how a person will change their play-style to "I will shoot you in the face as soon as I see you" and then have the audacity to say, "See? [i']There's proof why it's all a deathmatch now!"

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I haven't seen any people use their own behavior as proof that the game is a deathmatch, that would be silly. What many people, myself included, are saying is that the game mechanics strongly favor deathmatch-like behavior, and as a consequence we're going to alter our playstyle to better fit the game, to the detriment of the social and survival aspect of DayZ.

Yes, it's a conscious decision to shoot other players on sight, but if the game is designed to make that the most viable way to play then it's only logical to do so. More importantly, it's not hypocritical to play according to what the game favors, while simultaneously criticizing the fact that the game favors that playstyle. What would be hypocritical would be playing this way, while criticizing that other people utilize that playstyle. I think there's a subtle but important difference.

It's like, suppose a game has a well-known extremely overpowered item, and I openly use it. If I'm saying 'This item should be heavily toned down in the next patch, but it's in the game so I'm going to use it and expect others to do so until it gets changed', I don't think that's hypocritical. If I'm using the item while saying 'You people shouldn't be using this item, you're terrible people and you're ruining the game' then I'm an enormous asshole and deserve to be tarred and feathered immediately.

[underscore 12]

What I'm saying is that aggressive' date=' inflammatory posts make people more likely to simply ignore you...

[/quote']

Catgut, you must be new around here. Look around: inflammatory, aggressive posts get attention; calm, rational discussion gets ignored. Take this thread, for instance. If you had taken the time to inject sarcasm, condescension and rudeness into your here posts, this thread would have grown by multiple pages over the last few hours. Instead, the only thing we hear are crickets.

Welcome to the internet. Hell, welcome to life. I mean, why are political shock jocks so popular? Now, if you're saying that this kind of belligerent behaviour doesn't lead to anyting constructive, then you are correct, Sir. But, being ignored doesn't lead to anything either, does it? Ah, choices...

Also, I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. As I've been saying for some time, it's conceited to blame "COD kiddies" or whatnot for the state of the game. Truth is that people have simply discovered the most logical, most efficeint way to play the game and KOS is the result. This is a direct response to the game mechanics and game balance itself.

Now, is this a problem? I'd say many people would agree that it is indeed a problem. Why? It sucks a great deal of complexity and uncertainty out of the experience - the exact attributes that a significant portion of the player population had signed up.with the hope of seeing. Does rocket understand and appreciate any of these sentiments? Maybe. Is he going to take the steps necessary to ameliorate the problem? Honestly, I doubt it.

[gammadust 0]

Does rocket understand and appreciate any of these sentiments? Maybe. Is he going to take the steps necessary to ameliorate the problem? Honestly' date=' I doubt it.

[/quote']

If the issue is still about DM/KoS prevalence of gameplay against any others...

I care to suggest you might be wrong on both accounts:

- 20 words or less: Spawning without a weapon

- 20 words or less: Super-Low Humanity Detection

[The Killing Joke 43]

P.S. This was meant to be the 'anti-thread', as are most of my posts. Inflammatory? Sometimes. I'll bet you dollars to donuts, however, that the high majority of my posts are responding to people's rude comments. I definitely do not try and jump on new players, or ones who may not be familiar with the game.

That being said, the guy who jumps on with his first and only post and says, "THIS GAME IS AWFUL BECAUSE..." is likely going to get both barrels.