Idea to sort out some trust issues

[BabylonUSArmy 21]

The main reason people want a solution to player killing is because "Boohoohoo I lost my gears" :*(. The point of the game isn't to accumulate items. The point is to survive and acquiring gear is only a means to that end. If you're playing to find a ghillie suit, NVGs, and an SVD, then yeah, you'll be pissed when you die. Think about it. Say you've found all that stuff, then what? Most players' experiences would actually suffer after that point because they're so scared of losing their epics that they don't do anything risky. Trust me, I used to play like that. I used to rage when I got killed after finding some rare items. And then I'd jump back in thinking "Ooh I have to get my stuff back" and the grind was on. Playing like that was almost never fun. The fun factor in this game is intended to be found in doing something incredibly dangerous and coming out on top. In fact some of the most fun play sessions I've had was when I'd see how long I could survive with very little. Face it, you're going to get killed. A server bug or update will eat your character. The sooner you get over the idea of having X Y and Z items makes you cool, the sooner you'll really enjoy the game.

[CLewis 31]

The main reason people want a solution to player killing is because "Boohoohoo I lost my gears" :*(. The point of the game isn't to accumulate items. The point is to survive and acquiring gear is only a means to that end. If you're playing to find a ghillie suit, NVGs, and an SVD, then yeah, you'll be pissed when you die. Think about it. Say you've found all that stuff, then what? Most players' experiences would actually suffer after that point because they're so scared of losing their epics that they don't do anything risky. Trust me, I used to play like that. I used to rage when I got killed after finding some rare items. And then I'd jump back in thinking "Ooh I have to get my stuff back" and the grind was on. Playing like that was almost never fun. The fun factor in this game is intended to be found in doing something incredibly dangerous and coming out on top. In fact some of the most fun play sessions I've had was when I'd see how long I could survive with very little. Face it, you're going to get killed. A server bug or update will eat your character. The sooner you get over the idea of having X Y and Z items makes you cool, the sooner you'll really enjoy the game.

I really don't think thats the case. From reading these kind of threads, it looks to me like many people just want the posibility to interact with others, without shooting them on site. To have some situations where you have to make judgement calls, to wether you can trust someone or not.

I'm against this game (mod) turning in to a DM only, but ff shouldn't be turned off. I just hope the devs have some good ideas we can test in this alpha/beta mod, before they make any final solutions the the end product.

[chhopsky 25]

We should all take a moment to appreciate the very public statistics on the front page of the site. We can determine a lot from them:

Claim: "this game is deathmatch"

Statistics:

Survival attempts: 20 million

Murders: 3 million

Reality: Only 15% of all deaths have been PvP. The vast majority die to zombies.

--

Claim: "everyone is a bandit"

Statistics:

Bandits killed: 429k

Bandits alive: 124k

So a total of around 555k lives has been used in which a person has murdered another player. 555,000 of 20,000,000.

Reality: Less than 3% of characters have been used to take another human life.

--

Claim: "everyone shoots on sight"

Statistics:

Total characters alive: 723k

Total bandits alive: 124k

If we take this instant in time as being an average snapshot, as indicative of any other, then we can surmise from this that approximately 17% of current player characters are player killers.

Reality: Only 17% of current players have killed someone.

--

This is nowhere near the 100% of players that people are whining about. People really need to think about whether or not it is THEIR behaviour that is causing them to be murdered, and be open to the possibility that their experience of Day-Z is not what the vast majority of others are experiencing.

Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution. I'm going to save this post and possibly cross-post this info somewhere else because people whining about 'everyone kills u' are just .. wrong.

Edited July 29, 2012 by chhopsky

[TRIGG3R 0]

Only those that have been seen can be shot on sight *Fades into a bush*

Edited July 29, 2012 by TRIGG3R

[chhopsky 25]

99% bandits? There aren't that many I can assure you. it's over 50% currently but I think that will balance out as we continue to get new players, and the mechanic that makes you a bandit is improved.

The numbers show that less than 3% of total lives have been used for banditry, and only 15% of all player deaths have been murders. Only 17% of alive players are bandits.

Full stats ongoing in this thread.

[droznig 20]

I think it's a great idea, honestly, maybe not the "best" solution but probably the best I've read yet. I'm all for something being done against the ludicrous amount of deathmatching going on in DayZ. I mean, sure, it's a Zombie Apocalypse, but seriously? There's a WAR going on in Elektro and Chernogorsk, going as far as groups of 10-20's clashing against each other with grenade launchers, light-machine guns and satchel charges. Most of the time I get close to the coast to take a look at cherno I can't tell if I'm playing a Zombie Simulator or if I got ported back in time to the Normandy Landing, sure sounds and looks like it.

Well you said it yourself, group's of 10-20, these people are working together, and often you will find bandits in groups of 2 or 3. I often play in a group of 4 it just takes a little effort outside of game to organise a group. You want someone to trust you, put some effort in, all it would take is a few posts on a forum or to join a clan.

[S3V3N 1402]

Well - when do you turn into a bandit? I shot two people without annything happening. So the statistics may lie (as always). Also remember the copius amount of people who respawned, until they were in the same place like their friends. Luckily this is fixed now.

I get your strive for realism and it is true that you can approach players (you see first) from off their FOV, but it's not worth taking the risk. If you already have better gear than them, shooth them for provisions. If you have inferior gear - shoot them for their guns. <- That's something that is not likely to happen in RL, unless you are starving. You would try to work together to survive, because it is much easier to survive in groups than alone. If it were different, we wouldn't be humans, we'd be crocodiles.

Read my post on page 1. It has some ideas about how Coop would actually work without causing a buttload of problems.

Edited July 29, 2012 by S3V3N

[Mos1ey 6301]

We should all take a moment to appreciate the very public statistics on the front page of the site. We can determine a lot from them:

Claim: "this game is deathmatch"

Statistics:

Survival attempts: 20 million

Murders: 3 million

Respawns on Coast: 17 million

Fixed.

[necroslord 73]

My thoughts on this topic:

On the ssue of the game turning into team deathmatch:

Team Deathmatch is much better than Free for all Deathmatch. You can't get that issue any worse than it is today. I wouldn't mind making teams.

Friendly fire: Friendly fire isn't disabled in games with the purpose of making them easier or less realistic, that is a side effect. Most of the times (Sven Coop comes to mind) it is done to prevent moronic behaviour. Freedom let's you see how bad human factor is (you can see that here as well). So some games get restrictions to that freedom in order to keep a game's health.

In conclusion, suggestions here are valid. I hate when people are rude just because they disagree with something.

However I don't know if I actually support the idea. Bandits and the risk of attempting contact has it's appeal. But I do agree sometimes it is just ridiculous. Again I bring the topic of consequences. Real life has consequences that balances behaviour. Games don't. For example, in real life you think before killing someone. You know what it means, you know you may regret it and there is no going back. However in games you loose nothing for killng someone in cold blood. In fact you do it a lot across many games. I guess some artificial balancing is needed due to the artificial nature of the envroment. You can't realistically balance something that doesn't have realistic consequences.

Very complex topic. Human psychlogy is nt my strong point. I guess I would be really scared to study such a creepy thing as the human mind.

[Blakorr 77]

this idea is stupid and anyone who likes it is stupid too.

[Igor (DayZ) 96]

Two teams = no

I like the way it is now.

[chhopsky 25]

Fixed.

If you'd like to prove that with some valid stats I'd be happy to discuss the numbers with you.

[(AOW)n4zRuDiN 10]

I'm sorry but this idea would not work, Servers struggeling with 80 people so I kinda find it hard to have a 40/40 on a server. Finding someone is gonna be even harder and less exciting.

Map is to big to have 40 enemies on it, and then there's other 40 people thats suppose to be your friends.

Vote: No.

Edited July 30, 2012 by n4zRuDiN

[sealteamaus 16]

I agree with Mr Leonard.

[S3V3N 1402]

How about you add armor/bullet proof vests to the game? You can find it like the Ghillie-Suit and the entrenching tool (which I have and dunno what to do with, lol; wtf is an "engineering backback?").

If there is kevlar you can risk talking to people and even take a few hits without taking much damage. I'd at least feel a bit more comfortable to talk to people, knowing that most players are too psyched to aim for a clear headshot at encounters. It would be a rare item with a finite number of hitpoints.

Edited July 30, 2012 by S3V3N

[prospekt 8]

This post is incredibly wrong -__-

[(AOW)n4zRuDiN 10]

How about you add armor/bullet proof vests to the game? You can find it like the Ghillie-Suit and the entrenching tool (which I have and dunno what to do with, lol; wtf is an "engineering backback?").

If there is kevlar you can risk talking to people and even take a few hits without taking much damage. I'd at least feel a bit more comfortable to talk to people, knowing that most players are too psyched to aim for a clear headshot at encounters. It would be a rare item with a finite number of hitpoints.

There's no such thing as a bullet proof vest.

But some kind of armored kevlar would be a nice addition.

Edited July 30, 2012 by n4zRuDiN

[scoobysnacks 32]

Long post, all I really got from it is that you *dont* want friendly fire..

No thanks... i like being paranoid.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Scoobysnacks

[S3V3N 1402]

There's no such thing as a bullet proof vest.

But some kind of armored kevlar would be a nice addition.

I thought the kevlar might take some randomized hits, like the bone breaking system. It's not supposed to be a shield of some kind, just a bit of protection. Maybe you can patch it up to last longer and it would look sick to meet a survivor that has a vest that has been repaired a couple of times.

Edited July 30, 2012 by S3V3N

[Pariah21 0]

Well I doubt a regular Kevlar vest would save you from some AK 47 shots.