Banditry exploded

[haizakokaru@yahoo.com 2]

Play with a group.

It's one of the few ways to survive while maintaining player interaction in this game.

[matthewbflanagan@gmail.com 36]

I find hope in humanity when I read these forums. This is the first time i've actually went on the forums and read through a few topics. I started this game knowing that I have the moral obligation to help out fellow survivors I see.

My first real life, I had finally found most essential tools to survive. As I looted a small building, (mind you I had an axe in my hand), a player pointed a shotgun to my face and I awaited my death. Then something happened I never expected. "Friendly. Friendly" I heard over the mic. We killed a few zombies and went our seperate ways. My faith in humanity was strong.

That same life, I was in a warehouse when I saw a fellow survivor. We killed a horde of zombies attracted by one of my gunshots and talked over the mic with eachother. He asked for a bandage if he got injured, I obliged. After the choas, he asked what I had found in the warehouse. I told him about the rifle in my hand. The last words I heard over the mic were "I'll just be taking that then.." as he thrusted his axe in my body and killed me.

It just goes to show you that mic or not, there are good people, and there a very bad people. The only way to be sure is to kill any threats. If I would have had really nice gear that betrayal would've been even worse. Now that I'm geared again, I don't let anyone near me. I havn't had to kill anyone, but if someone were to come close I would. Its just what i'd have to do. And when that time comes, I think back to the betrayal by "dontbesneaky".

[toot 8]

I kill people because it's pretty funny.

When I die my last words on open comms is usually good kill before I bleed to death.

E-HONOUR.

I don't even gear up. I just get a gun and helicopter-dick in cherno or elektro.

Edited July 29, 2012 by tootmaimington

[MolestedRabbit 0]

It is going to be a wall of text, so if you don't feel like reading the whole post, just skip to the last paragraph.

I am not a big fan of roleplaying, in fact, I don't feel like "I am going to figure everything on my own" and tend to google a lot, so if you are into the roleplay, it might take you a bit longer to figure out the game and get bored with looting the buildings.

I was brought to the game by a friend. He made me install it and we played for a few hours. I don't remember how I died, but the fact is - I decided to create a new character and play on my own for a while.

The first goal was to get used to the movement (since I have always hated the so called combat simulators and am not used to not being able to jump and stuff). Surprisingly, it didn't take me too long to adapt to all the restrictions devs had to put on players to prevent them from playing ArmA the FPS way ;)

The second problem was to learn to navigate. Not a big deal - I googled for some sort of DayZ wiki and in a few minutes I had a printed copy of the map on my table and the knowledge of the fact that clouds ALWAYS move to the east. Navigation problem solved.

Okay, so I was ready to start exploring the world. I moved to the closest deer stand, which provided me with a bandage and the chance to check the zombies aggro radius when running, running crouched and crawling. I also had some practice LOSing them. Zombie problem solved (well, almost).

�I was all out of luck, so it actually took me around an hour to find a gun. So I was like "okay, I now need to practice my shooting skills". I first googled for the differences between DayZ and ArmA 2 in terms of weapons stats. There are none. Then I started looking for some sort of a shooting range map. Took me around 10 minutes. I looked for the most common weapons list and spent a few hours practicing.

Took me a few more days to explore the map, get my first kills, die a few times and all that stuff. I have been playing DayZ for around a week by now I am not saying that I know literally everything about the game, but basically, I know everything I need to avoid the zombies and navigate the map with my eyes closed.

And it turnes out, there is not much for me to do now... What options do I have? pretend that the zombies are scary? I don't think you can do that unless you are on some serious crack. The only thing about the game (except the creepy ladders/tree trunks that can bug-cripple you) that is somewhat challenging is PvP. And that is what people do because unless you are pretending that it is a survival horror (and it clearly isn't atm), there is no point communicating with other people. Organize groups? The only benefit is that someone will pick up and keep your weapon for you if you get killed.�

I am not a game designer and Rocket probably knows what he is doing, but if you ask me, I only see the only way to make people communicate - make zombies scary (that is - exceptionally hard to kill and way harder to avoid) + change the loot spawns to force players to group in order to raid bigger settlements / military bases. Maybe I am like 100% wrong, but I think it would then make sense to try and make friends with that guy over there to raid Cherno for medical supplies and weapons instead of joining an empty server.

Edit: I do like the game though, because it is unique and still fun to play.

Edited July 30, 2012 by MolestedRabbit

[Huntra 35]

maybe ask a friend who is mroe fluent in english to edit it for you so it makes more sense then and i dont have to guess what your saying,

i understand the video's fine, similar experiments have been done with several animal species, the fun thing is social animals co-operate effectivley but every now and again when the chance presents its self one of them may choose to freeload off the others work, they understand co-operation and fairness and that opens the door to them understanding cheating

Jane Goodall - "there isn't a sharp line dividing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom -- it's a very wuzzy line -- and it's getting wuzzy-er all the time"

the ahrder we look the less we find, everything we thought was purley human we find in nature, it may be a less refined form but its there

Cba responding to everything you said. Suffices to say you are wrong on many accounts. In group morality is morality nonetheless, what you say about greek tribes misses the point. Spartans and Greeks treated each other honourably in war, and outside fo war respected each other, they used violence to create authority that while not causing peaceful co-existence allowed at least some structure to the violence . This isn't about dispelling some pretend old left notions of noble savages or tabla rasa.

It is clear that a game where everyone inside the game (excluding people on skype / ts) kills on sight is a zero sum game. It is also pretty clear that the real world has never been a zero sum game, even in times of absolute chaos, its not realistic to think limited cooperation would never emerge inside a world with limited resources and a high probability of death. If you don't see that you're just as indoctrinated with ideas about the human condition as people who say modern society invented war.

More importantly everything you say ideaology is is wrong, ideaology exists in a non-empirical space of interpretation without which we cannot give political significance to anything at all. Everything you say about fanaticism is nothing to do with ideaology in the proper sense of the word. Imo you quote / reference too many pseudo-science mongers who pervert science to make sweeping claims about human nature. You don't seem to understand the difference between humans being inherantly good or evil and how rational self-interest drives social structures to emerge. Tribes teaming up, even with the intention of killing others, creates a moral structure, honour amongst theives. The game doesn't even facilitate any of this considering you have to go outside the game to find people who won't KoS, and that's why it's unrealistic.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Huntra

[2ugly 12]

It's a game, it's not real life. So realism was thrown out of the window on day one. You are not really killing a person by shooting him in the game. But yes, you are nullifying his/her hours of work by doing so - so its not a very nice thing to do anyway.

I do often shoot newly spawned players, even unarmed ones... Why? Because just because that player has respawned, does not mean that he would not be a bandit who kills other people on sight and would continue to do so the moment he gets a gun.

What I try NOT to do, is to shoot new players, the ones that are really new to the entire game. Because I still consider them to be innocent to the KoS going on. Unfortunately, it is rarely that I can truly know who is a new player and who is just a new respawn. And usually I just opt for the assumption that "guilty unless proven innocent".

Also, I've noted that unarmed players can be indirectly hostile. If they are part of a group, they usually communicate to that (often hostile) group - And this obviously poses a problem. The guy might not have a gun on him, but his friends have. And I don't intend to get killed in that manner anymore, so, I'll just rather cut off their spying communication. With the one method available to me. Which is to just shoot the unarmed guy.

I try treat players by the person behind that character, not by the temporary character that might be one minute of age and thus supposedly "innocent" with zero murders. The temporary character lifetime and its stats are irrelevant. Death is not a real persistent death even in this game. You respawn and run to get your gear back (from your body or clanmates) - and then continue whatever you were doing. You are the same person despite the death in-between those lives. If you have killed others for no reason, then you still deserve the same faith, despite the respawn.

TL;DR - Because I've been killed dozens of times for no reason by the other players, I feel no obligation to be above all that (and contantly getting killed), and thus will kill on sight as well to counter the situation. It's either that or just quit playing the game. If that is not what the game is supposed to be, then the game mechanics should be changed to counter it. It's as simple as that.

Don't even want to point out all the faulty logic going on here. By these standards on birth we should die. But DayZ logic is illogical....so it fits.

Edited July 30, 2012 by 2ugly

[Delta-Dude 52]

Took you that long to figure it out? :-)

Took him that long to lose hope. My respect to him. My disrespect to you.

DayZ became a dumb massive PvP game full of hackers, cheaters, bug-abusers and kids who normally should not be allowed to play such games. I know administration can barely do smth about kids and we all have to live with that, but cheaters and hackers that can shoot through the wall, see you, vehicles and tents through the whole map, kill everyone on server, spawn gear and vehicles whereever they want.. I'm terrible annoyed, but seems like noone can niether will do smth against this shit at the stage of Alpha Version. Also the fun and spirit of the game died, when Bandit/Survivor system was disabled. Have fun brainless PvP`ers, you're not much better than zombies now - attacking everything on sight with and without any reason.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Delta-Dude

[Huntra 35]

Man all the people who say that KoS is just the game and thats what makes it fun should go back to call of duty. Noone wants to make the game friendlier or more forgiving, but with no in game interactions at all these days its just not fun, its just like some type of weird free-for-all arma game that happens to have zombies. When I got this game I wanted to take people hostage and stuff, but you can't because its Kos world right now.

[Chandler (DayZ) 14]

Look at his posts(rocket's), he's clearly a bandit :) Even his signature was the gif of him killing some guy for an open can of beans. At least I imagine it's him x)

Actually, that came up during an interview-- I believe it was the TotalBuscuit interview. Rocket stated he had only killed 1 individual in cold blood since he began DayZ. Again, if memory serves... I may be wrong on which interview because I'm getting old but it was one of the recent ones.

Edited July 30, 2012 by ChandlerL

[lordofpie7000 0]

Man all the people who say that KoS is just the game and thats what makes it fun should go back to call of duty. Noone wants to make the game friendlier or more forgiving, but with no in game interactions at all these days its just not fun, its just like some type of weird free-for-all arma game that happens to have zombies. When I got this game I wanted to take people hostage and stuff, but you can't because its Kos world right now.

You make a wonderful point, and while taking people hostage isn't what I'm after, complex gameplay is. After 3 weeks of playing I decided to sign up on the forums to try and expand my gameplay experience, because it's literally impossible to interact with anybody in game without dying.

On the KoS subject, DayZ is DayZ because of human interaction. If you throw that out the window, all you have is a random death match fps with zombies.

[flattermann 0]

Honestly, Paxton, what do you expect? Just never go downtown unarmed! Avoid it anyway if you don't have to, if you're getting greedy and want the good gear the easy way, right after spawn, then you have to face the risk of being shot in an instant. Killing freshly spawned players right at the coast is indeed sort of a crime within the game, but in Elektro/Cherno? Simply because you don't have a gun in your hands? How would people know that you don't have one in your backpack (or other shiny gear) that you just hope to keep by means of playing one of the innocent? You better be safe than sorry!

Edited July 30, 2012 by Flattermann

[noobfun 87]

Cba responding to everything you said. Suffices to say you are wrong on many accounts. In group morality is morality nonetheless, what you say about greek tribes misses the point. Spartans and Greeks treated each other honourably in war, and outside fo war respected each other, they used violence to create authority that while not causing peaceful co-existence allowed at least some structure to the violence . This isn't about dispelling some pretend old left notions of noble savages or tabla rasa.

except a) your assuming you should be within my in-group, your not my morality of not shooting you, of banadageing you when injured, giving you food and water when your short, of carrying gear i find halfway across the map for you .... doesnt extend TO YOU

your not my ingroup,

your on entierley the wrong page in the wrong book, were not talking about formed states of goverment with political and trade ties (the more you trade with someone the more raiding them becomes a zero sum game, more advantage to continuing trade then haveing to try and take it), were talking states of anarchy, were talking tribalism thats the way the game is fractured, this is what happenes when society goes fubbar

were talking downtown mogadishu (post goverment collapse upto the islamists taking control buy force and bringing order, but ignoring the blip of the U.N trying to fix it) where heavily armed gangs lay claim to areas and took what ever they wanted by force, where they would have running gun battles with rival ganags in the street and not give two fucks about who got caught into the gunfire

and you guys are comming back with this wouldnt happen in real life becasue ive been to downtown manhatten and didnt see a single running gun battle or techincal driving past

It is clear that a game where everyone inside the game (excluding people on skype / ts) kills on sight is a zero sum game

no its a posative sum game, by killing you i get free stuff and risk nothing. by teaming with you i stand to gain some loot(but not all) and risk loosing everything this is a zero/negative sum depending on the probable outcome

It is also pretty clear that the real world has never been a zero sum game,

trade makes war a zero sum game ... i think your using it wrong

even in times of absolute chaos, its not realistic to think limited cooperation would never emerge inside a world with limited resources and a high probability of death.

im not saying it wouldnt, its in game i co-operate with my companions, my desire to survive includes keeping them alive and helping them this is my tribe,

the same with every other official clan, or group of friends playing together they have thier tribe why do you expect for no reason to be included in then

If you don't see that you're just as indoctrinated with ideas about the human condition as people who say modern society invented war.

nice ad-homonim, but im gonna say fuck off, war was around long before we evolved, want footage of chimps carrying out border raids against neighbours? how about wolves? merecats? etc etc

More importantly everything you say ideaology is is wrong, ideaology exists in a non-empirical space of interpretation without which we cannot give political significance to anything at all. Everything you say about fanaticism is nothing to do with ideaology in the proper sense of the word.

wrong

ideology is at the most basic levels a vision of how things should be, and the ideas of how to get it there, fanatasism is working to the same goal but in a way that is slighty deviated from 'the norm' but still within socially acceptable bounds (usually accompanied by self confirming facts/arguments etc)

slavery was an accepted ideology, beating/raping/killing slaves was accepted ideology. defending it using the bible and declaring the bible absolute truth was fanatacism

one is an extension of the other, there is no clear cut divide between the two, fanatacism is deffined by a deviation from the norm, the norm is generated by those within the ideology, and those outside

sending jews to the gas chamber becasue they casued the countries economic problems, becasue they couldnt be trusted and becasue they killed jesus therefore were of the devil was ideology, it was accepted by the vast majority of those within the social structure. it only became fanatacism when someone asked 'shouldnt we ship them all off somewhere else' and got the reply 'god says to kill the unbelivers and the defilers of his plan and your not gonna argue with the bible are ya?' or where people went beyond the accepted ways to treat them like shit and kill them - this is fanatacism and ideology from the inside,

its very different to the same classification from the outside, its a matter of perspective this is why i can understand people near the coast who are foraging away to kill new unarmed player even though i dont do it myself, and how i can understand some people's desire to be able to group up for defense/fun (which is essentially just forming another in-group and most people outside of it are still screwed)

Imo you quote / reference too many pseudo-science mongers who pervert science to make sweeping claims about human nature.

and yet you dont bring this science to the table, just point and say 'not real science dont believe it' or 'he isnt a real scientist' why is this? and how are they sweeping claims? talking about a specific aspect of human behaviour is talking about a specific aspect of human behaviour no where is ANYONE claiming that this is all there is to it

now i agree that psychology in all forms isnt science(strictly speaking), but thats becasue the methodolgy that has to be used cant conform to the accepted scientific method fully, not becasue the results gained arnt accurate and realistic or repeatable becasue yeah theya re repeatable and the results are consistant for the most part so accepting them as facts is earned, denying them becasue you happen to dislike them is akin to saying evolution didnt happen becasue my ideology of choice says it didnt, or that the claiming the sky actually i blue becasue its a ncier thought then the sky is transparent and its light refracting that generates what our eyes interpret as it being blue - its just utter nonsense

You don't seem to understand the difference between humans being inherantly good or evil

they are neither, and good /evil dont exist but thats a different topic

and how rational self-interest drives social structures to emerge. Tribes teaming up, even with the intention of killing others, creates a moral structure, honour amongst theives.

yes i do, it doesnt create a moral structure it extends certain aspects of the in-group structure to people that wouldnt normally be included within it, but dont forget that in teaming up its not all that rare for party A to just sit back and watch party B and C duke it out and then not help at all, or to then atatck party B instead of helping them, or attack both when they are in a weakened state

The game doesn't even facilitate any of this considering you have to go outside the game to find people who won't KoS, and that's why it's unrealistic.

'dont shoot the messenger' been ahppening since long before we were able to shoot them so dont expect it to go well ofetn but i agree we dont really have a mechanism in game the equivalkent to staking a pig on the outskirts of the village with one of our distinctive tribal hats on over the stake to try and generate some good will before the messenger gets sent in and hopes he doesnt die

see to start you seemed to be arguing 'people have morality, therfore people wouldnt kill other people' which is flagrantly nonsensicle and oblivious to the fact that people do kill people, then as an example it became people in 'large civillised organised groups dont kill people' which for the most part is true, statistically im 35 times less likley to be murdered now then i was in the 17/18th century (and thats murder not death during war), but thats not the socioeconomic enviroment the game enviroment is in weve been bombed back into the familial pack/early tribal period

but now you seem to be arguing that the game doesnt have the inbuilt mechanics so we can move the current tribal based system into a proto civilised city state system without having to step out of game (which i agree we dont)

so right now im confused what is your trying to argue for

1)are you arguing that people have morality therefore no one would kill anyone, irrigardless of if they belionged to the in-group or not?

or

2)that the game doesnt have the inbuilt mechanics so that those that choose(or are forced to by allegance to parties involved and desire to remain part of the group) cant orghanise the tribalistic groups into proto city state groups so the forums have to be used and youd rather it could all be done ingame?

becasue the first ones demonstrably false but the second one i agree the mechanics to organise within game are fairly limited and adding in global chat again would help somewhat with this but would then become 'unrealistic' in the fact i can talk to anyone anywhere on the map (or more notably annoying them by talking shit or playing music down it which is what usually happened when we had it)

personally i tend to view the forums as an extension of the game anyway so while bieng sat under a tree watching a rabbit hop around in the field i dont have immediate access to the functionality required i still have access to that functionality even though it works on a slower scale then mr bunny and his hopping around

Edited July 30, 2012 by stuffnthings

[jamesthebrit 16]

Either everyone talks bullshit or I am part of the most mentally deranged community in existance. Everyone seems to think in real life they would happily shoot someone else? Take someone else's life away. For the sake of mankind, I hope people are talking out of their arse :P

[NightRipper 284]

I just have to facepalm myself even more by reading most of the answers, really now!

Listen up: Shooting unarmed people, in Real Life I mean, is either murder and also not even covered under military protection. So much for the "IRL" people!

Listen up: Killing an unarmed player in DayZ might make you lol but think: You have shiny gear, somebody kills you, you rage. You spawn new, think of the possibilities and build up fun again, bam, shot with nothing, time to respawn!

It's not like I despise the fact that it is part of DayZ, I even like firefights, but what the hell is the POINT in shooting new spawned guys? You start to make me sick, really sick.

Your OP had me giving a shred of sympathy, but seriously, QQ more. Just GTF off the coast, head north, and you'll be fine. The problem with you is you're heading for the major cities immediately, thinking your lack of a weapon will keep you safe. I'd shoot you just to hear you QQ more.

Seriously, just man up. For every one of you QQing about PvP, there's 50 of us just dealing with it.

[lun4tic 8]

I haven't murdered that many people, but the ones I don't murder are always the ones that murder me. Better safe than sorry.

[MrBrown (DayZ) 26]

Just GTF off the coast, head north, and you'll be fine.

Yesterday I GTF off the coast and headed north from Kamenka. Suddenly met someone at the first barn north-east of Kamenka. He talked to me on VoIP, but I couldn't understand because I was surprised and didn't listen carefully enough. I'm pretty new to the game, so I thought "You better answer quickly", but unfortunately I hadn't configured my microphone for the game so far. So while I was trying to figure out what I could do to signal I'm friendly.... he shot me -_- I cannot even blame him, if some guy with a hatchet was standing in front of me and didn't react when I talked to him, I guess I'd shoot too. Well, but I definitely configured a key for direct communication now ^^

Edited July 30, 2012 by MrBrown

[noobfun 87]

Either everyone talks bullshit or I am part of the most mentally deranged community in existance. Everyone seems to think in real life they would happily shoot someone else? Take someone else's life away. For the sake of mankind, I hope people are talking out of their arse :P

welcome to reality, its not a nice as sitting in your fancy desk chair and popping down to the local maccy'dees for a bigmac and fries

people kill people, given orders by soemone of enough authroity most people will torture other people (see milgram experiment) when given control over others they they begin to brutalise them (stanford prison experiment)

given the right motivation good people do bad things often without qualm, and where dought starts to creep in they rationalise it away as coping mechanism

the more we know about what Trevor our inner ape is capable of, is driven by and the circumstances he comes out to play the better able we are to prevent him coming out to play, but first you have to stop pretending he isnt there and this nice comfy life style you have isnt how we evolved

Edited July 30, 2012 by stuffnthings

[daniel.owens@iqu.com 43]

Yeah, bandits completely outnumber survivors *rolls eyes*

July 30th, 2012.

Alive Characters: 735,234

Bandits Alive: 125,402

[Huntra 35]

except a) your assuming you should be within my in-group, your not my morality of not shooting you, of banadageing you when injured, giving you food and water when your short, of carrying gear i find halfway across the map for you .... doesnt extend TO YOU

your not my ingroup,

your on entierley the wrong page in the wrong book, were not talking about formed states of goverment with political and trade ties (the more you trade with someone the more raiding them becomes a zero sum game, more advantage to continuing trade then haveing to try and take it), were talking states of anarchy, were talking tribalism thats the way the game is fractured, this is what happenes when society goes fubbar

were talking downtown mogadishu (post goverment collapse upto the islamists taking control buy force and bringing order, but ignoring the blip of the U.N trying to fix it) where heavily armed gangs lay claim to areas and took what ever they wanted by force, where they would have running gun battles with rival ganags in the street and not give two fucks about who got caught into the gunfire

and you guys are comming back with this wouldnt happen in real life becasue ive been to downtown manhatten and didnt see a single running gun battle or techincal driving past

no its a posative sum game, by killing you i get free stuff and risk nothing. by teaming with you i stand to gain some loot(but not all) and risk loosing everything this is a zero/negative sum depending on the probable outcome

trade makes war a zero sum game ... i think your using it wrong

im not saying it wouldnt, its in game i co-operate with my companions, my desire to survive includes keeping them alive and helping them this is my tribe,

the same with every other official clan, or group of friends playing together they have thier tribe why do you expect for no reason to be included in then

nice ad-homonim, but im gonna say fuck off, war was around long before we evolved, want footage of chimps carrying out border raids against neighbours? how about wolves? merecats? etc etc

wrong

ideology is at the most basic levels a vision of how things should be, and the ideas of how to get it there, fanatasism is working to the same goal but in a way that is slighty deviated from 'the norm' but still within socially acceptable bounds (usually accompanied by self confirming facts/arguments etc)

slavery was an accepted ideology, beating/raping/killing slaves was accepted ideology. defending it using the bible and declaring the bible absolute truth was fanatacism

one is an extension of the other, there is no clear cut divide between the two, fanatacism is deffined by a deviation from the norm, the norm is generated by those within the ideology, and those outside

sending jews to the gas chamber becasue they casued the countries economic problems, becasue they couldnt be trusted and becasue they killed jesus therefore were of the devil was ideology, it was accepted by the vast majority of those within the social structure. it only became fanatacism when someone asked 'shouldnt we ship them all off somewhere else' and got the reply 'god says to kill the unbelivers and the defilers of his plan and your not gonna argue with the bible are ya?' or where people went beyond the accepted ways to treat them like shit and kill them - this is fanatacism and ideology from the inside,

its very different to the same classification from the outside, its a matter of perspective this is why i can understand people near the coast who are foraging away to kill new unarmed player even though i dont do it myself, and how i can understand some people's desire to be able to group up for defense/fun (which is essentially just forming another in-group and most people outside of it are still screwed)

and yet you dont bring this science to the table, just point and say 'not real science dont believe it' or 'he isnt a real scientist' why is this? and how are they sweeping claims? talking about a specific aspect of human behaviour is talking about a specific aspect of human behaviour no where is ANYONE claiming that this is all there is to it

now i agree that psychology in all forms isnt science(strictly speaking), but thats becasue the methodolgy that has to be used cant conform to the accepted scientific method fully, not becasue the results gained arnt accurate and realistic or repeatable becasue yeah theya re repeatable and the results are consistant for the most part so accepting them as facts is earned, denying them becasue you happen to dislike them is akin to saying evolution didnt happen becasue my ideology of choice says it didnt, or that the claiming the sky actually i blue becasue its a ncier thought then the sky is transparent and its light refracting that generates what our eyes interpret as it being blue - its just utter nonsense

they are neither, and good /evil dont exist but thats a different topic

yes i do, it doesnt create a moral structure it extends certain aspects of the in-group structure to people that wouldnt normally be included within it, but dont forget that in teaming up its not all that rare for party A to just sit back and watch party B and C duke it out and then not help at all, or to then atatck party B instead of helping them, or attack both when they are in a weakened state

'dont shoot the messenger' been ahppening since long before we were able to shoot them so dont expect it to go well ofetn but i agree we dont really have a mechanism in game the equivalkent to staking a pig on the outskirts of the village with one of our distinctive tribal hats on over the stake to try and generate some good will before the messenger gets sent in and hopes he doesnt die

see to start you seemed to be arguing 'people have morality, therfore people wouldnt kill other people' which is flagrantly nonsensicle and oblivious to the fact that people do kill people, then as an example it became people in 'large civillised organised groups dont kill people' which for the most part is true, statistically im 35 times less likley to be murdered now then i was in the 17/18th century (and thats murder not death during war), but thats not the socioeconomic enviroment the game enviroment is in weve been bombed back into the familial pack/early tribal period

but now you seem to be arguing that the game doesnt have the inbuilt mechanics so we can move the current tribal based system into a proto civilised city state system without having to step out of game (which i agree we dont)

so right now im confused what is your trying to argue for

1)are you arguing that people have morality therefore no one would kill anyone, irrigardless of if they belionged to the in-group or not?

or

2)that the game doesnt have the inbuilt mechanics so that those that choose(or are forced to by allegance to parties involved and desire to remain part of the group) cant orghanise the tribalistic groups into proto city state groups so the forums have to be used and youd rather it could all be done ingame?

becasue the first ones demonstrably false but the second one i agree the mechanics to organise within game are fairly limited and adding in global chat again would help somewhat with this but would then become 'unrealistic' in the fact i can talk to anyone anywhere on the map (or more notably annoying them by talking shit or playing music down it which is what usually happened when we had it)

personally i tend to view the forums as an extension of the game anyway so while bieng sat under a tree watching a rabbit hop around in the field i dont have immediate access to the functionality required i still have access to that functionality even though it works on a slower scale then mr bunny and his hopping around

Again you crit me with a wall of text. I have very little to say except

a) you don't know what ideology means in an academic sense of the word.

b ) you don't understand what a zero sum game is, a game where co-operation is irrational because there is no way for us to both win the game, if I let you win +1 then I lose -1

c) You seem think in-groups are always exclusive, totally ignoring how in groups come to exist. This game does not even faciliate the emergence of in-groups in game. In-grouping is only rational in non-zero sum circumstances.

Furthermore I'm not stating society created war in that so called ad-hominem, I'm stating that anyone who believes in the war of all on all as the natural human condition is equally indoctrinated as someone who believes in the noble savage and the social constructiion of war.

And yes I'm arguing for 2), the motivations for human interactions are principally selfish, its unrealistic if everyone KoS because in reality a variety of difference social structures would emerge in the real world which is not a zero-sum game. I never said humans are primarily moral and wouldn't kill each other, I'm saying that this game forces KoS in a way that is unrealistic because many humans are to some degree moral, and this isn't expressable in the game. The only time you see it in game is when unarmed players aren't KoS'ed, which is a rule many players play by, even though that strategy doesn't maximise utility as even unarmed player carry painkillers and bandages etc.

Finally you shouldn't listen to the psuedo-scientists because there is a good reason why in physics if someone says we can prove this within 80% certainty they politely tell them to leave before they phone security.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Huntra

[NightRipper 284]

Yeah, bandits completely outnumber survivors *rolls eyes*

July 30th, 2012.

Alive Characters: 735,234

Bandits Alive: 125,402

^THIS.

[Robolord 11]

I'm still gonna continue using voice chat to get some friendly people. Met 2 great guys at balota airfield yesterday, we were all happy there are still people out there who dont insta shoot eachother :)

[derailed000 20]

The only way to get around the issue OP posted is. Changing people is often a difficult process and is in this cause....hopeless.

1. Survivors setup their own server were KOS leads to ban.

2. Mod is updated so it is possible to enable so called pvp areas on the map where rest is pve.

[Huntra 35]

The only way to get around the issue OP posted is. Changing people is often a difficult process and is in this cause....hopeless.

1. Survivors setup their own server were KOS leads to ban.

2. Mod is updated so it is possible to enable so called pvp areas on the map where rest is pve.

Both those measures are far to extreme. As a survivor I want to exist in a world of both bandits and survivor otherwise the fun is gone. I don't want true safe zones because that ruins the fun of the game. All the game needs is better comms so survivors can get to trust each other a bit.

[daniel.owens@iqu.com 43]

The only way to get around the issue OP posted is. Changing people is often a difficult process and is in this cause....hopeless.

1. Survivors setup their own server were KOS leads to ban.

2. Mod is updated so it is possible to enable so called pvp areas on the map where rest is pve.

This mod isn't intended to be easy, it's intended to be unforgiving, brutal, and cruel. Paranoia and fear are a large selling point, add in safe zones and you completely ruin that fear and paranoia. At the end of the day, if you don't like sandbox style mods, if you don't like "difficult" games, don't play them.

[Reggiostar 2]

The only way to get around the issue OP posted is. Changing people is often a difficult process and is in this cause....hopeless.

1. Survivors setup their own server were KOS leads to ban.

2. Mod is updated so it is possible to enable so called pvp areas on the map where rest is pve.

I think a warning or so when you kill somebody newly spawned would help. But regulation always is very problematic. I just hope people will become a bit more mature when they are playing some time.

But I also had a bad experience some days ago. I spawned in Komarovo and was looking for a hatchet near the docks. Suddenly a player comes around the corner with a hatchet and just starts running towards me. Well, I naturally start running too and talk to him in VoiceChat that teaming up would make more sense and that I don't have anything. He doesn't answer and after one minute we get shot by another retard. Just freaking disappointing.

Especially as you have much higher chances of survival as a team. Killing somebody with bad gear and looting will probably not prolong your life as much as teaming up with them. Maybe some day people will realize that.