The Moral Effect Theory v2.0

[Ayanamifan 2]

What about rewarding each play style?

From what I've seen, this whole thread is pretty much "what negative effect can we give bandits to not make them kill". What if, perhaps, there was a reward for becoming a survivor and a reward for becoming a bandit? Admittedly, this is hard to think up, only because in "the real world", you aren't magically rewarded for doing anything. If I kill X players - a gun doesn't just pop out of no where that I can loot.

The idea I'm leaning more towards ... and I hate to say it - I really, really do .. but I feel like this might be one of the games that could do it right, is some sort of achievement system. Reward players for:

X amount of hours spent alive in game.

X amount of player kills.

Killing a player that has killed any other player.

Killing a massive amount of players.

Killing someone who has killed a massive amount of players.

X number of items horded.

X time spent near other survivors.

X time spent alone.

X distance traveled. (maybe max and min)

These can be stats that are displayed on the main page, perhaps even during loading of the level (if such a thing were possible). Things for people to go for, if they choose to and to actually achieve in the game. Some other appropriate awards? I dunno .. I couldn't really think of anything that wouldn't be seen as like .. I have to be a bandit if I want -this- or a survivor if I want -this-. But more of a recognition type thing ... Oh man, this guy's killed 300 people .. I hope I don't run in to him. Or - This guy has killed this many people, I'm going to get my group and take him out. A notoriety of sorts, I guess. Even in 'real life', you could still hear rumors about notorious people or groups, for good or bad things. That's more or less what the system would represent. How to deliver that to players would be the tricky thing.

I think what might be the key to this 'issue' is a massive amount of stat tracking ... This could have negative effects, sure .. people could 'game the system' - but I imagine that will still give the opportunity for people to mess with them (IE: camping in a remote corner for X time spent alive .. you're still in the game world, can still get killed ..)

The other negative thing I could see is the massive amount of data required to be put through the servers to track all of that ...

The other idea I had, kind of tied in with that - more of a rewards unlocking thing, more of a 'progression unlocking'. I had difficulties with the 'rewards' of this though. If you were a bandit/survivor, you got access to special skins or something .. but I don't think that works too well ..

Perhaps a 'luck' system would be good? Neither .. 'faction(?)' has bad luck, but rather being a bandit increases the likely hood of bandit type stuff? Things like sniper rifles, AKs maybe .. I dunno. Survivors might be luckier in finding things like better food or maybe even luckier at finding tents? It wouldn't prevent either 'side' from finding each others items, just make it so more 'bandit centric' gear was more likely to spawn for a bandit and 'survivor centric' gear was more likely to spawn for survivors.

I dunno, just was trying to think of something that gets away from putting negative effects on either play style and rather rewards either play style.

[The Killing Joke 43]

That's just semantics. Your "punishing" is another man's balance. Though I do partially agree' date=' there should be some effect to your "first kill", perhaps more pronounced the longer a player has survived without killing someone. If a player has gone 2-3 days surviving without killing anyone, then he does so, that should be a pretty significant event.[/quote']

Ok, I'll give you your way and ask you this. What if, for balance sake, you count player kills up there with zed kills? I mean, technically, you're doing the exact same thing, right? I'd even go further to say that coming up against zeds would be more soul-affecting than another person...

[Slicker (DayZ) 0]

Hi, first time poster. I literally registered for this discussion.

Seems to me that there are a couple of issues that complicate the "bandit" quandary:

1. Your character is persistent. Your server is not. I understand the reason for this, but it negates the consequences of banditry. Perhaps a character's lifespan should be restricted to the server he connected to? Cross-server information could be used to prevent users from connecting to new servers unless they forgo their existing character and ensure that there are no hacked modifications are being made to characters. It would also solve the issue of people migrating to abuse the day/night cycle.

2. Include some clues when investigating player bodies. I think this would be amazing; you investigate a player corpse and get something along the lines of, "This player appears to have been shot in the back of the head and torso. Looking around, you find a number of spent shotgun shells scattered a few yards from the body." or "You discover a half-scrawled message underneath the victim's stiffened hand - 'Don't trust [playerna-]'" or "Tracks seem to suggest that he was with a group of people/another person before he was killed." This helps potentially identify gear or description of bandits in-game, meaning that players will be wary when encountering someone openly wielding a shotgun, for example.

3. Every murder adds a number of hours to that player's respawn time. It sounds like punishment, but hear me out. The effect of this will be to force a player to seriously consider the impact of killing another person; it simulates the real-world hesitance. Playing a bandit or within a group of bandits makes it easier to survive and you are rewarded accordingly in gear, but you know that every kill is adding a huge number of hours before you can begin your next session should you die. Surviving without killing is significantly harder to do, but infinitely more satisfying and - should you perish - you know you can begin your quest anew fairly quickly. You won't need to worry about a humanity system or bandit skins or nerfed starting gear or whatnot, because you've introduced a game-mechanic that does not arbitrarily punish a bandit or survivor in-game (and by in-game, I mean as the person is playing), but is enough of a mitigating factor to create the desired result.

[The Killing Joke 43]

"You discover a half-scrawled message underneath the victim's stiffened hand - 'Don't trust [playerna-]'"

You may be surprised to hear' date=' but I wholeheartedly support this idea. I had actually come up with an idea similar, having [i']"[Playername] is a murderer!" scrawled across a nearby barn in blood. It's a great way to keep the immersion, in my opinion, while lending some tension to the game as well.

Every murder adds a number of hours to that player's respawn time. It sounds like punishment' date=' but hear me out. The effect of this will be to force a player to seriously consider the impact of killing another person; it [i']simulates the real-world hesitance.

If this isn't a punishment, what would be an equivalent situation for the survivor? Would they have a delayed respawn because they got killed doing something stupid? For example, if you shoot a survivor who is running down the middle of the street, they get delayed for 15 minutes? Their own 'mitigating factor' is that they are an idiot.

I'm taking a little bit of comedic liberty with you here, because it is, in fact, a punishment. You are punishing the character for killing another player, and there isn't a comparable punishment for a survivor.

[Slicker (DayZ) 0]

I'm taking a little bit of comedic liberty with you here' date=' because it is, in fact, a punishment. You are punishing the character for killing another player, and there isn't a comparable punishment for a survivor.

[/quote']

I take your point; I suppose I see it more as a gameplay choice. In a way, the survivor is "punished" continuously because he can't just murder everyone he meets. He has the potential to become awesome, but really only awesome against Walkers. If he sees someone with awesome gear, he can't just kill him to pick it up.

That same player, should he choose to become a vigilante or a guardian angel for other players, will suffer exactly the same consequences as the bandit. Likewise if he murders someone in self-defense. The fact that he's role-playing a good guy is irrelevant; murder has the same impact.

The bandit is punished retroactively - by choosing to go the violent route, he increases his chances of survival dramatically against other players from the get-go at the cost of respawn time. It also deals with these players who camp on the coast killing people as they spawn - the impact of killing new players repeatedly who have crap equipment to start off with anyway purely for shits and giggles has a significant cost in terms of session time.

[Reliqua 10]

I think this is a good idea, because personally, I try as hard as possible to play it like I would real-life. I find it hard to bring myself to shoot someone, just because I'm naturally, or am what I believe to be, a good person. I really only shoot people if it's in self defense, or someone scares the shit out of me when I turn a super-market corner. I even try not to just KOS bandits, because sometimes, they don't WANT to be bandits, it just happened accidentally. If I see a bandit, I'll just watch them for a while with my binoculars, see what they're doing. If I see them move up and take a survivor out, I know they're an actual threat, and if they're on something I need, whether it's ammo, food, water, or meds, I MAY try and take them out for it. I only do this when I know they're a threat, and know I cannot survive much longer without whatever they're on. I want it to be as realistic as possible, because I know if I shot someone that wasn't already shooting at me or my friends, I'd be scared as shit. I'd be shaking, vomiting, and probably passing out.

[LeYuno (DayZ) 51]

To counter this would be adding something to the game that negates the positive reinforcement. We need something that makes a killer feel bad about killing other players' date=' through a mechanic ingame that gives a negative feeling. The notion that you can't tell a player what he needs to feel is countered by something he will feel negatively about, and link it to the murders he has been committing. [b']In psychology, this is called classical conditioning (dog of pavlov).

You can take your whole Clockwork Orange symbolism and go, unless you are going to enable the similar mechanic on people who do not shoot other people, and make their sights shake or their gun drop, with an audible "I can't do it!" because they refuse to take a human life.

You aren't talking about balance. You are talking punishment for an in-game allowable occurrence. Until you have similar effects for those who don't shoot other people, then you cannot arbitrarily enforce rules on a group based upon their play-style.

EDIT: Oh, and to the OP. What you have proposed is a hypothesis, not a theory.

I have no clue what a clockwork orange has to do with this. I've seen it in parts during English class in the past but I hardly remember anything past the trowing feces at the wall part.

Something tells me you are playing as a bandit.

The point you are trying to make however is fairly lopsided. Survivors don't cause troubles for other players in the game. They cause neither positive nor negative effects on the world they are trying to survive in.

Bandits end the lives of other players, get rewarded with loot and cause a negative effect to the game and the players they have shot.

The fact that bandits can cause this much negative effect to the game should be countered with something negative for them too. If you think that's not necessary, you just want to keep your bandit-way of play in the game safe (and easy) and are being selfish towards other players.

[Tehdark 3]

Absolutely zed killings should affect it. The more you kill the more it would affect you, maybe you get used to it and killing becomes easier. A person could choose to avoid them and play stealthy, but then when he finally comes into conflict with one, the effect is more pronounced. There is so much you can do with it. It shouldn't be strictly related to player killing. Imo anyway.

Edit: A clockwork orange (Film / Book) demonstrates the use of the classical conditioning which LeYuno was mentioning, hence the reference.

[The Killing Joke 43]

In a way' date=' the survivor is "punished" continuously because he can't just murder everyone he meets.[/quote']

Nice try.

That same player' date=' should he choose to become a vigilante or a guardian angel for other players, will suffer exactly the same consequences as the bandit. Likewise if he murders someone in self-defense. The fact that he's role-playing a good guy is irrelevant; murder has the same impact.[/quote']

That's a nice spin, but the punishment aspect may be a little heavy-handed against people who play the bandit, vs. people who are in your next category altogether.

It also deals with these players who camp on the coast killing people as they spawn - the impact of killing new players repeatedly who have crap equipment to start off with anyway purely for shits and giggles has a significant cost in terms of session time.

This is the problem. It deals with both fair gameplay (bandits) and unfair (spawn campers) with the same blow. I haven't seen a 'perfect' idea to combat them as yet, but maybe it's coming.

If certain areas are considered 'spawn points' (i.e. the coast) then I would say a random spawn of zeds would be nice, especially if they could be triggered by someone camping a certain area. If you're sitting in the same spot for 5-10 minutes in the hopes of picking off a newly spawned player, you could spawn 5-10 zeds who would inevitable shamble towards your position... ...preferably from behind.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

First post updated.

[Reinofragin 1]

I really REALLY like the idea of dead bodies attracting zombies, just not immediately. Also the idea of getting blood on you when looting a corpse that would increase the zed's aggro radius is actually really genius. I do not however agree with visual changes and statistical differences that vary from character to character based on any sort of past actions. The campfire idea might be ok, but I feel that it is currently fine.

The idea of looting a corpse and getting blood on you i believe to be the most implementable, adding the debuff would be a way for bandits to be punished for their actions in-directly and give survivors a risk/reward factor when finding a body.

The dead bodies I think will be a little harder as it seems like zombies don't really go to anything until they finish their path and hit a solid object.

[Defhrone 2]

I like the fact there is been thinking on this subject. Especially since the current system is broken clearly, since I just started the game with a cooperative mindset, but in 1 situation I had to kill to defend myself (I was being shot at) and ever since I have the bandit skin and a huge target on my head. I haven't even played this for more then 4 hours so far. I love the concept of the game, but this skin is ruining my playstyle. I did like the skins idea that was posted, that you could find skins (clothingshop maybe) and wear those. That also allows you to play whatever style you like. Perhaps that pro's and con's system could be applied to said skins. But there are obvious dangers there aswell. Perhaps it should be just from vanity sake. this current system might work if your morality stats don't get carried to your next life. I might wanna play cooperative 1 life, and me a homicidal maniac the next life. I don't want a permanent playstyle bonus which I cannot change or get negative effects for in my next life. In reality you couldn't say if your next door neighbour would be a murderer or not from their appearance. You can only judge his character and take a guess if he is capable of it. In this game, everyone is capable of that, which makes people paranoid which is an awesome immersion effect if I ever seen one.

I am affraid that this morality system you are trying to invent (and not just current idea's, but the concept in general) is not gonna be good or effective. Simply because morality is a really complex and difficould issue, even in real life. And like I said, people might fancy trying to survive in the woods hunting games 1 life, and being a killer of opportunity in the next one. An overarching system would potentially ruin the emmersion and experience of the game. Everyone should imho be equal and have the same opportunities like everyone else. Let this virtual world atleast have this blessing we so desperately need in the real world. A utopia, but with zombies and scarse food. :P

[terrvik 2409]

If certain areas are considered 'spawn points' (i.e. the coast) then I would say a random spawn of zeds would be nice' date=' especially if they could be triggered by someone camping a certain area. If you're sitting in the same spot for 5-10 minutes in the hopes of picking off a newly spawned player, you could spawn 5-10 zeds who would inevitable shamble towards your position... ...preferably from behind.

[/quote']

I have said just this several times in different threads. Make every zombie in the area attracted to loud noises and make them investigate. If you camp, you will inevitably soon be surrounded by angry scary death. This isn't punishment because this is how it would probably work in this world. It fits and make sense. And as a bonus it works as a game mechanic.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

I don't want to add mechanical upgrades as well, but I have hit a wall here.

I'd like to know what were some of the ideas that rocket mentioned earlier in the thread. I'm not aware of how limited the engine is.

[terrvik 2409]

What about when the identification system works? There are several threads with this suggestion and it will probably be in the game at some point, if only as a trial. I mean if nametags were removed and some more sophisticated system to "recognise" other players were to replace it. If you go nuts and murder people you will probably get a reputation as a murderer. If you're not good and never seen that is.

Then you could have some sort of face covering mask item that keeps you anonymous at all times. Of course you would look like a bandit and never ever be trusted. Balance that doesn't feel forced people, I love it!

[g2knee 1]

Awesome idea. It had to flushed out more, but it's cool.

If you just make looting players get blood on you, and zeds are attracted to blood, that solves 80% of rampant banditry right there I bet. However, we must keep in mind that keeping the game DANGEROUS is very very important. We must not discourage PK'ers too much. It's too damn fun to have the uncertainty and risk around.

Anyways, I think the key to not making the game a complete deathmatch is creating more REWARDS for working together.

And yes, I think in a realistic survival scenario, people would be desperate to find other like-minded individuals and work together towards a common goal (whether that be surviving, building a new home, or killing others.) It is human nature on so many levels.

[combatcomm1 234]

Why is it that noone sees the phychological impact killing people over and over again by yourself with no positive human contact would have on someone? You think everyone who is bandit is not a human being? A social/cultural animal? The player on the other side of the keyboard does it because he knows its not real life. So game mechanics have to take that into consideration and balance that.

Because bandit A can go online and find all the info he needs, or ask question is global chat from the comfort of his sniper perch he feels no need to go out and socialize in game. In RL this would have profound implications. Bandit A would also have a real hard time survivng in the world. How is he going to learn first aide, navigation? CPR? he isnt. because you learn that from other humans. Enough with the hand feeding of info online and in global chat. This will help. We arent robots. Depression, PTSD, insanity, mania. All these things would eventulley result and as such implementation of a realistic sanity system can have negative effect on bandits who go to long without contact with other humans or kill to many. Its realistic, phycologically and scientifically sound. Lets use it.

Just ask any criminal phycologist or military phycologist! Human beings no matter how twisted or cold are effected by constant loneliness or death.

[iexus 6]

Does no-one else play as a group of bandits?

Me and my friends work together, we don't trust anyone else so we're all pretty much bandits a lot of the time however we heal and provide help to our group so we are also co-operative. We flicker between being survivor skin and bandit skin all the time. We don't kill people for fun but we do kill anyone we see who looks like they have actual gear on them (Or beans, god the beans).

You don't seem to have catered for this option. You're either running around hand in hand with other survivors or alone.

[TeaLeaf 5]

What about when the identification system works? There are several threads with this suggestion and it will probably be in the game at some point' date=' if only as a trial. I mean if nametags were removed and some more sophisticated system to "recognise" other players were to replace it. If you go nuts and murder people you will probably get a reputation as a murderer. If you're not good and never seen that is.

Then you could have some sort of face covering mask item that keeps you anonymous at all times. Of course you would look like a bandit and never ever be trusted. Balance that doesn't feel forced people, I love it!

[/quote']

Without side chat reputation would move very slowly.

[Suicide Mouse 50]

Does no-one else play as a group of bandits?

Me and my friends work together' date=' we don't trust anyone else so we're all pretty much bandits a lot of the time however we heal and provide help to our group so we are also co-operative. We flicker between being survivor skin and bandit skin all the time. We don't kill people for fun but we do kill anyone we see who looks like they have actual gear on them (Or beans, god the beans).

You don't seem to have catered for this option. You're either running around hand in hand with other survivors or alone.

[/quote']

Would be affected a little by both.

[Ashurah 0]

I'm taking a little bit of comedic liberty with you here' date=' because it is, in fact, a punishment. You are punishing the character for killing another player, and there isn't a comparable punishment for a survivor.

[/quote']

I take your point; I suppose I see it more as a gameplay choice. In a way, the survivor is "punished" continuously because he can't just murder everyone he meets. He has the potential to become awesome, but really only awesome against Walkers. If he sees someone with awesome gear, he can't just kill him to pick it up.

That same player, should he choose to become a vigilante or a guardian angel for other players, will suffer exactly the same consequences as the bandit. Likewise if he murders someone in self-defense. The fact that he's role-playing a good guy is irrelevant; murder has the same impact.

The bandit is punished retroactively - by choosing to go the violent route, he increases his chances of survival dramatically against other players from the get-go at the cost of respawn time. It also deals with these players who camp on the coast killing people as they spawn - the impact of killing new players repeatedly who have crap equipment to start off with anyway purely for shits and giggles has a significant cost in terms of session time.

If you wanted to punish bandits/survivalists equally for killing why not make zombies attracted to player kill sites. Maybe the smell of unturned human blood makes them go MAD with rage. Or maybe the smell carries to any zombie within a large radius and they begin to slowly wander to the area of the kill. Either way, it wouldn't matter what type of kill it was (self defense, murder, ect.), there would still be punishment for a kill.

[SkepticJerry 0]

Maybe if dead players attract zeds like sharks in the water you'd need to think "Do I want zeds sawrming this place before I loot all the houses?".

The death throes, screams of pain, blood everywhere, what's NOT there to attract zombies? I'm sure some loot would be damaged and destroyed by the zombies tearing the corpse apart. Is there time to loot? Can I take the chance to loot? Will they break the AK the player was carrying? Did that smoke grenade get lost in a pile of intestines? etc...

I know with last patch zombies are more attracted to dead players. Does it matter how they were killed or is it just the corpse drawing them? Of course none of this matters outside of settlements as there are no zombies in the wilderness.

I feel there should be more cooperative elements to the game, like blood packs for example. Kill as many people and who you like, I don't care, but make certain elements of the game require the cooperation of another player. There has to be a benefit to the players for NOT killing each other.

Something like blood transfusion is key to this. The game requires you get a transfusion FROM another player. Perhaps food shouldn't give back blood. Blood could return VERY SLOWLY at a constant rate only if you are WELL FED. Otherwise, the only way to get back quickly is to have another player give it too you. All this talk of realism and I never had a can of beans heal a cut or make me instantly "200 points" healthier.

Perhaps bandages should work something similar. If you bandage yourself, perhaps it only slows the bleeding and you trickle blood (Say 1 point every 10 seconds) for a period of time. Eventually it stops and you you can SLOWLY heal as above. Having a bandage applied, or first aid administered, from another player, stops the bleeding instantly and starts the healing process.

How about infections? You could get an infection from zombie attacks. YOU WERE BITTEN! It makes your player continue to get more ill and degrade his abilities. The only way to cure this infection is help from another player.

Things like this would require you to seek out other survivors as survival is no longer tied to kill or be killed. This doesn't punish anyone for play style and makes other survivors more valuable than a can of fucking beans.

[terrvik 2409]

What about when the identification system works? There are several threads with this suggestion and it will probably be in the game at some point' date=' if only as a trial. I mean if nametags were removed and some more sophisticated system to "recognise" other players were to replace it. If you go nuts and murder people you will probably get a reputation as a murderer. If you're not good and never seen that is.

Then you could have some sort of face covering mask item that keeps you anonymous at all times. Of course you would look like a bandit and never ever be trusted. Balance that doesn't feel forced people, I love it!

[/quote']

Without side chat reputation would move very slowly.

Yes, that's true. Hmmm. But is that such a bad thing though? It takes a long time to get, and a long time to lose. A player has the same nametag several lives and deaths after all. Could be pretty hard to wash away a reputation as a murderer?

[Defhrone 2]

I like the idea of needing help with things like the blood transfusions. Perhaps there could also be a reward in trading items. But I still think that it should not be visable what kind of 'type' you play. It just isn't realistic. Current system is clearly broken, and I would love to rant about that hear on how it pisses me off that I got a bandit skin whilst I have a strict 'only shoot when being shot at' policy when it comes to players. and having this skin just perpetuates that. I like to try different survival strategies and having a system that keeps track of your playstyle over several lifes just ruins that completely.

The covered in blood thing mentioned isn't a bad idea, but I personally think there shouldn't be a visual representation on your body for it. If you where to kill someone with a hunting knife (if it where possible) a visual representation would be in order, but scavanging a corpse that was shot clean in the head by a sniper wouldn't leave that much blood on you I don't think. (no RL experience ofc)

I think this game has much potential because of it's realism, and people act strange in these situations if they occour in real life aswell.

Personally I think there should be more interractions that require more than one player, just fullfill the social needs people have, which I think could be a gage on the UI. People cannot live without it (without going nuts)

As much as it pains me to say. I still think installing a morality system would damage the realism in the game.

[LeYuno (DayZ) 51]

i do like the idea of a corpse attrackting zombies. This effects players of both sides alike. good idea!

it might not help counter the bandit sniper though. If he sees two survivors scurrying around he might shoot one and watch how the hilarity ensues..