The Moral Effect Theory v2.0

[jwguy 0]

I'm very interested in seeing parts if not all of this implemented. It sounds like an interesting way to scale effects, sometimes positive and sometimes negative, into the Bandit gameplay for each person murdered. This makes sense, because Survivors who play peacefully have positive and negative effects, too; The benefits of cooperation, coordination, and psychosis-free actions, and the detriments of almost always being the second to shoot when attacked.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

http://www.dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6048

http://www.dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4270

http://www.dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4210

Not including all the times it's brought up when someone starts a discussion on bandits. I don't want to come of as an ass' date=' but it's like game design golden rule #4 "Don't tell the player how he feels. He will generally disagree.".

[/quote']

The second link is relevant, though it is still only about mental sanity and I'm talking about the full psyche effect for both good and bad characters.

I'm not talking in terms of bandits and heroes, I'm proposing a way to end this and make everyone the same: survivors who will do what they need to, and live with the weight of their actions. I don't like black and white thinking, no one is innocent in the world as it is, much less on the zed world.

I'm talking about action and reaction. You run in the game, you'll get tired, you'll aim badly, you'll breath heavily. You get outside, you'll feel cold. You feel pain and you'll pass out, shake etc.

You see?! This is already implemented, it's already part of the game. The reactions are there, they are being simulated.

"But I'm not feeling tired, why can't I aim?", "But I'm not hurt, why should I pass out?", "But I'm in middle of f-ing Miami, why am I feeling cold?"

This is already there, the reactions are already part of a simulation, and an essential one.

The things I have said are exactly this, no different in any way whatsoever.

[Alto (DayZ) 1]

But seriously, my tuppence worth:

A person will not work towards a thing that is good unless they have liking towards it and know betraying it is wrong or a bad thing to do. In RL we all have a liking towards good health, say. In the game we all have liking towards surviving as long as possible.

In the game we find consequences to our actions; meeting players in 'populated' areas is ruled by a categorical imperative towards your own survival. You don't want to wake up Zed and therefore regard making a loud noise a bad thing. The karma (shall we call it) is built in. I've both been saved by a bandit and killed by them over my first few days playing this game. I still have my humanity. I havn't had to kill. But have been a victim. Personally, I've learnt only to venture into the city at night only, its safer that way. I like the night and I have learnt not to trust anyone I don't personally know and, yes due to this have developed a 'do whatever it takes' mentality as the consequence are potentially always good. It actually increase the stress level of the game. Which is also good, that is why I am playing.

As for a dislikeable consequence for killing, how about spawning zombies in the immediate area? This could be implemented on a scale with a persons humanity? (Should you really feel it needs reimplementing) The higher the inhumanity the higher the Zed count. Or maybe on a time scale to killings, if it is really felt that shoot-em-up players are ruining the game.

The shoot-em-up players aren't really playing the game. They are not getting the hit of the whole fruit.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

If I'm looking to preserve myself I actually take zeds attracted by a gunshot over another player anyday.

AI is easy peasy, but a decent player can take you out with one bullet from far away.

[TeaLeaf 5]

The things I have said are exactly this' date=' no different in any way whatsoever.

[/quote']

It's totally different though.

Running makes you tired, there is no avoiding this consequence without breaking the laws of physics. For every human being on the planet, running will make them tired. Some get tired faster than others but it's the severity of the consequence that changes between individuals, not the actual consequence.

The game: You ran for quite a bit, you're tired now.

The player: Makes sense.

For killing people, the consequences are different for everyone. Most people would be traumatised, some wouldn't care and a rare few would actually enjoy it. Now I know the majority of people that kill in game probably couldn't do it IRL, but the point is that it isn't up for the game to decide. You don't tell people what they are feeling.

The game: You shot that guy! Now you are super guilty!

The player: LOL who cares about that fag?

Look at the difference between good and bad movies in provoking emotion. The good ones present you with the scenario and you either "get it" or don't, but the movie doesn't rely on you feeling the way it wants you to and most importantly it doesn't try to force those feelings on you. The bad ones just play sad music and have all the actors look depressed for 5 whole minutes, the result is that anyone that didn't really empathise with the characters before hand now absolutely despises their whiny asses.

Got a bit off topic there but I hope I made some sense. Bed time.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

I see your point perfectly, and even though my suggestions were all extremely superficial about dealing with murder, I was hoping for more in-depth construction by everyone, to dig this deeper. I totally know that the reactions aren't all the same, I for one am sick and enjoy some stuff that other people would find gruosome. But that's just the thing, people that enjoy get addicted to it, so they suffer extreme effects when not killing (remember when Bundy tried to stay low and went nuts, violating and murdering 4 girls in that fraternity house?). But, the first time those famouse serial killers murdered someone, they experienced the same effects of regular people. They were all filled with regret and sickness in the day after. The thing that makes them different is that after the regret went away, they wanted more.

So what I was thinking was not as much as a punishment for killing, but a way to separate those that kill ocassionaly to survive and those that kill everyone they see. They would experience different outcomes, because one is addicted to killing and the other just does what has to be done.

I mainly think so much about this because I would enjoy suffering the effects of actions like those.

So yeah, it's just my opinion, what I'd like to see and how I'd like to be affected by the world I have created around myself.

But it is a fact that some way to contain the killing needs to be found. It takes the simulation out of survival simulator and ruins the game.

[Cloth 2]

Hey Mouse,

This is an interesting issue. Nicely done with the picture in the OP, that was really fun to read.

I really like the idea that the "killers" would become addicted to killing, actually. I'm not sure it would work in game but it's a fascinating thought.

For those arguing that people have different responses to killing, sure. So implement that. Some people vomit when they kill, some go catatonic, some get off on it and become addicted etc etc. Randomly assign that feature to the character and make it something the player doesn't know until they actually kill - a very realistic feature, wouldn't you agree?

I think a modeling of the emotional state of the character is completely reasonable - especially since we humans can't exercise a lot of control over our emotional state.

It seems silly, though, to laud the game's ultra-simulation of zday while ignoring or brushing off it's lack of meaningful simulation of the emotional or mental state of the character.

Finally, the penalty of death IRL vastly exceeds the penalty of death in game - this is unavoidable, and it results in behavior that would never occur in an honest-to-godzday. If that unrealistic behavior becomes commonplace enough, IMO it will poison the game experience.

- Cloth

[Suicide Mouse 50]

Hey Mouse' date='

This is an interesting issue. Nicely done with the picture in the OP, that was really fun to read. [/quote']

Thanks, I was trying to make it less boring. After so many suggestions threads, some people get sick of it.

For those arguing that people have different responses to killing' date=' sure. So implement that. Some people vomit when they kill, some go catatonic, some get off on it and become addicted etc etc. Randomly assign that feature to the character and make it something the player doesn't know until they actually kill - a very realistic feature, wouldn't you agree?[/quote']

That is a great concept, actually, and it makes a lot of sense.

Plus, when you actually kill a character and you get the expected response that you'd think you'd like to have in real life, you will inevitably become attached in some form to that specific character and will want to preserve it so much more, making you think hard on whether engage a player or not.

I think a modeling of the emotional state of the character is completely reasonable - especially since we humans can't exercise a lot of control over our emotional state.

It seems silly' date=' though, to laud the game's ultra-simulation of zday while ignoring or brushing off it's lack of meaningful simulation of the emotional or mental state of the character.

[/quote']

Exactly. Some have approached this as an "taking the freedom from the player" option, but they have failed to realize that we are slaves to our psyche. We have little to no control over it, and if we could control our brains I'm sure we would shape our personalities in absurd ways.

You're not losing you're emotional freedom because you'd never have it in a first place. Again, it's simulator terms we are speaking here.

I'm really glad you understood the core of my concept so well and managed to express it better than I did.

Thanks, mate.

[R_P_Gamer 0]

So far this is the best suggestion i've seen for adding a consequence to murder. Also it was in an entertaining format, and that's just awesome.

So, let's say something like this were implemented using the current "Humanity" system (though for this purpose one could treat it as "sanity" and it would likely make more sense), which Rocket plans on leaving in the game in a vestigial form after skin changes are removed. How would one go about it?

Let's say one starts with the base 2000 humanity, when it drops below a certain point (maybe into the negatives) the player begins suffering ill effects (hyperventilation perhaps, or blurred vision) which will clear up in a short time. The player's humanity will then tick back up to it's normal level, or be raised by helping other survivors (as normal).

However, if a player continues on a killing spree, they descend into a level of psychosis. Difficult thing here though, a psychosis isn't something you just "recover" from, the player's max humanity would have to be reset to a new, low level, and perhaps would begin to tick down instead of up, causing more and more severe effects as it drops to new lows, and requiring medication to reset it to it's new base value.

The humanity values would also have to reset when starting a new character, rather than carrying over as they do now.

Hmmm, looks a bit complex, perhaps something simpler would do better, thoughts?

[Cloth 2]

That is a great concept' date=' actually, and it makes a lot of sense.

Plus, when you actually kill a character and you get the expected response that you'd think you'd like to have in real life, you will inevitably become attached in some form to that specific character and will want to preserve it so much more, making you think hard on whether engage a player or not.[/quote']

Hadn't thought of that, that's really cool actually! :) So non-gear related reasons to feel bonded to your character...hmm. Yeah sweet!

Exactly. Some have approached this as an "taking the freedom from the player" option' date=' but they have failed to realize that we are slaves to our psyche. We have little to no control over it, and if we could control our brains I'm sure we would shape our personalities in absurd ways.[/quote']

Couldn't agree more! Imagine if we could choose who we fall in love with, rather than falling in love, often in spite of ourselves. How about infatuation, lust. And of course anger. So much of human experience is thrust upon us, without so much as a, "by your leave."

You're not losing you're emotional freedom because you'd never have it in a first place. Again' date=' it's simulator terms we are speaking here.

I'm really glad you understood the core of my concept so well and managed to express it better than I did.

[/quote']

Sweet! Agreement and cooperation - emerging properties of zday the game and zday the forum! ;)

P.S. I absolutely love the "snowball of douchebaggery", I plan on many applications of that phrase IRL!

[Joquin 1]

The easiest way to encourage cooperative play... is to limit supplies. First, the equipment people start with needs to be reduced. A single can of beans, bottle of water, and pistol with one clip should be all anyone needs for the first hour. Secondly, the spawn rate for guns and ammo also needs to be reduced. Make it a great deal when someone finds a shotgun. Better yet, make them antagonize about spending the oh so rare shells that came with it. These two changes will significantly lower the amount of mindless violence in this mod. It will also greatly increase tears when people well equipped do die, which should please more than a few people.

A lot of people forget that survival games aren't just about killing those who threaten the player but also resource management. With resources being so abundant in this mod, managing ones resources isn't that important. This is a problem since it should at least take precedence over player killing.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

I don't really think the cooperative play is a problem. I mean, it's not like they're opposites, the killing and cooperative. One can be a lone wolf and just avoid other survivors, or help them and just leave.

I like the killing, I really really do. It's the key of the game, the sellpoint for me. It just needs a little control like in normal life, that's all.

I don't really want to be pushed in joining groups, but I want to know that when I choose to end someone's life I'll have to deal with the interpersonal consequences like a man.

[Supershutze 0]

I like your thesis' date=' though I fear it might go to the extreme.

I wouldn't mind having it tested in the game. I don't play like a bandit, and had to kill my first person yesterday, it was a shocking experience for me, even though its just a game. But I've been working on my current character for six days, and have begun to get attached.

[/quote']

Killed my first person 10 minutes in. It was pitch black, and some bandit tried to ambush me at the same time someone 300m behind him lit a flare:P. I saw his silouette and put 6 bullets in his torso.

I don't try to kill people in the game, I try to work with them, but finding someone you can trust is hard. First person I worked with I had to abandon because he fired his weapon in the middle of a town. Lost most of my ammo and almost my life in there , not sure what happened to him.

My creed in this game is thusly: "Me first, but I will help you if I can"

So far my kills are:

13 Zombies

2 bandits.

[Joquin 1]

I don't really think the cooperative play is a problem. I mean' date=' it's not like they're opposites, the killing and cooperative. One can be a lone wolf and just avoid other survivors, or help them and just leave.

I like the killing, I really really do. It's the key of the game, the sellpoint for me. It just needs a little control like in normal life, that's all.

I don't really want to be pushed in joining groups, but I want to know that when I choose to end someone's life I'll have to deal with the interpersonal consequences like a man.

[/quote']

The things, there are no personal consequences in a game which by definition has no consequences. At most, the only thing you lose is your time.

My solution wouldn't force everyone into groups. It would only shift lower end players towards cooperative play, while at the same time making high end players more oriented towards soloing. Tension would also increase.

An example would be too newly spawned people, total strangers. They both have very little supplies, and gain nothing from killing each other. Necessity forces these two to hatch a plan to raid a nearby, zombie-infested town for supplies. Using teamwork, they complete an objective where either of them would have failed on their own. Now comes the decision. The first player finds a valuable weapon. The second player sees him pick it up. Both are presented with a opportunity to betray each other. The tendency towards betrayal likely increases the more well-equipped each player becomes. In the end, this leads soloist to be the cream of the crop, with the low-enders being driven to cooperate.

Basically, through manipulating peoples desperation and greed, you can get a situation which in which new players can learn together. Later, as they become more experienced and well-equipped, these same players would evolve towards solo play. This is very different from the current situation, where most people just go into solo play and never consider group play.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

I like your option, as it has been suggested before and a bunch of people agreed to it, and maybe it could be part of what I've exposed in this thread. But as a full scheme to control the deathmatch... I'm afraid it wouldn't really stop a heavy portion of players who just act dumb (people are, in general, dumb) from killing just to kill. Some may not even be able to rationalize enough to get to the conclusion that they need another newbie to survive.

[Joquin 1]

I like your option' date=' as it has been suggested before and a bunch of people agreed to it, and maybe it could be part of what I've exposed in this thread. But as a full scheme to control the deathmatch... I'm afraid it wouldn't really stop a heavy portion of players who just act dumb (people are, in general, dumb) from killing just to kill. Some may not even be able to rationalize enough to get to the conclusion that they need another newbie to survive.

[/quote']

It's part of the learning process. After a certain number of "oh boy I screwed myself" lessons, players will learn to cooperate to a point. Those that aren't patient enough, willing, or just lack the ability to reach that point will leave. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that's for the best.

I think my solution is much easier than dividing people into survivors or bandits. All it requires is reducing starting equipment and weapon/ammo spawn rates. People will still kill each other, but the violence will be funneled towards higher-end players who are well-equipped and very experienced. Everyone else will be working together to raid settlements or hunt these higher-end players. All sides gain something. People who want to group together have a way of meeting strangers and perhaps gaining their trust in game. People who want to be psychopaths get to learn the ropes with their fellows before turning on them and becoming a soloist. The only people who lose are whose who spawn and start running down the coast looking to kill anyone they find.

[eegore 23]

I cant tell you how many people I know that have killed professionally, or in the line of duty that dont feel any side effects.

Several, and because its justified.

If they create game calculators designed to control our behavior then we must assume that whoever designed the "humanity calculator" is correct in how human we can all be.

[TeaLeaf 5]

I cant tell you how many people I know that have killed professionally' date=' or in the line of duty that dont feel any side effects.

Several, and because its justified.

If they create game calculators designed to control our behavior then we must assume that whoever designed the "humanity calculator" is correct in how human we can all be.

[/quote']

Exactly.

For those arguing that people have different responses to killing' date=' sure. So implement that. Some people vomit when they kill, some go catatonic, some get off on it and become addicted etc etc. Randomly assign that feature to the character and make it something the player doesn't know until they actually kill - a very realistic feature, wouldn't you agree?

[/quote']

1. If the character has different emotions to me. It feels like I am some sort of puppet master controlling my drone by remote control. It breaks the immersion and suspension of disbelief that I actually am that character.

2. People will try and "game" such a system. If you don't get a moral alignment you like, throw your character off a bridge and get a new one because finding it difficult to kill versus puts you at a MASSIVE disadvantage to the psychopaths.

3. Why not remove all control from our characters? I mean free will is basically an illusion anyway and the game should apparently simulate how I act instead of just the consequences of my actions.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

I cant tell you how many people I know that have killed professionally' date=' or in the line of duty that dont feel any side effects.

Several, and because its justified.

If they create game calculators designed to control our behavior then we must assume that whoever designed the "humanity calculator" is correct in how human we can all be.

[/quote']

But they had to do it first. It is a gamble.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

First post eddited, just so people stop talking like this would be another "bandit skin" scheme.

[The Killing Joke 43]

I'd like to think if the psychopath's mental state issues were implemented, I could talk to my ghost dad, and he'd tell me why everything I'm doing is right.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

Yes, funny enough I kept thinking about these "Don't tell me how to to feel about murder, I'm a cold, calculist manhunter, brah" as Dexter fans who in their heads believes that they are the right ones, killing everyone and all the others are wrong and need to git gud.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

I think ya'll are getting to far in to it. It's not about rather one person can kill or if another person has a hard time killing, It's about how most people in Dayz kills with out a thought in their simple little mind. with out punishment. this promotes PVP. Hell! there is no reason for people to put a 2nd thought between them and their trigger.

Killing someone should effect you. but not every time only the 1st two times you kill.

1st time you kill, it should effect you for 5 mins or so, you get sick, dizzy, shaken. Whatever.

2nd time you kill, it should effect you for 2 mins or so. same effects

3rd time no effects .

arguing that some people are hardcore and have a better mental state to handle killing, this doesn't fix the problem of aimlessly shooting people

[Suicide Mouse 50]

I believe that maybe something in the skins addition will help this, because the more time passes the more I feel like there's no solution. Ok, so obviously some people are very against simulated psychology, but none of the other options seemed any more efficient, really. People are and always will be dicks, specially in virtual environment.

Maybe, just maybe, if there a lot of skins, you can hopefully spot the killer and identify by the clothes, and then maybe the survivors would take the guy out. But this means no one else could be wearing the same items.

[rocket 16567]

snip

Loved it. I actually agree with you, I can't dig up the post by my intention was the have consequence to your actions but not penalty. How this will translate to a mechanic is yet to be seen, but killing players will have a consequence, but this consequence won't be a penalty, but it will reflect a player choice. That choice will have consequences, bad ones if you don't want to become that type of person. If you do want to become that type of person, then they are not bad.