A long, logical approach to the "Bandit Problem"

[JudgeX 1]

OK so the solution people are posting here are "if you don't want to get killed again' date=' go inland." Do you guys really understand what your saying is, "if your upset you just got killed by a bandit, when you respawn head inland with no idea where you are or where you are going, and hope you can find enough supplies to survive before you starve/freeze/get eaten by zombies."

I know a lot of people like to cheat by pulling up a map in google and alt tabbing, or are familiar enough with the map such that you can get your bearings somewhat without one. In a real life scenario such as this, if your idea for surviving was just to say fuck it and run for the nearest wood. Congratulations! you don't have to worry about dieing from zombies/bandits. You just killed yourself.

There needs to be some consequence for constantly running around killing survivors without a care in the world. In a real life zombie apocolypse, despite what people might think, there ARE consequences. Every person you kill, every can of beans you eat, every bullet you fire, that's one less in the world. One that's likely never to be replaced. So yes, you can go on your murder spree, you can kill everyone you see, the consequent in real life is that you'll just stop seeing people, you'll stop finding bullets, you'll run out of canned beans.

TL/DR: I think in this game there is already less consequence for banditry than there is in a similar real life scenario. I think we need to fix that.

[/quote']

But then you need to introduce a punishment for playing as someone who doesnt go round killing everyone. As soon as you introduce a punishment for a certain play style, even if it is killing everyone, you remove any incentive there is to play that way. Start punishing player killing and you STOP player killing. Then the mod dies.

The punishment is already in-game. If you don't kill everyone you see, your likelihood of being murdered at random increases. It's well over 50% of people that I see take shots at me or run away and hide.

Again, it's not punishment to simply move these people farther away from places where people spawn who are not bandits. They can still PK each other until their faces turn blue... it just puts in a very small element of work for them to PK non-PKers.

A small element of work exactly equivalent to the one you already prescribe for non-PKers - "run for 5 minutes when you spawn, into the wilderness" ... "run for 5 minutes towards Chern"... or... "spawn and run about with your makarov like you were going to IN chern, but instead up the coast a solid distance".

This change would also help players group with friends, which is something that a lot of people have asked for... if you and your pals are bandits, you spawn closer to each other. If you and your pals aren't? Closer. If you and your pals differ? Well, same game as it is now, nothing ventured nothing gained.

[BootsofPain 0]

My 2 cents,

I came to Day Z hoping to remain a survivor with a bunch of clan mates who would all cooperate to survive, settle down somewhere in the woods and scavenge and live off the near by land.

That dream has been impossible to realise as I have had to kill to survive. I now am a cold blooded bandit solely due to the fact that no one outside my clan seems to be trust worthy. I've been shot at and killed by players many more times than falling to the zombie plague.

Yet I wouldn't have it any other way. I have learnt and developed my views through out the last 6 weeks or so I've been playing. I believe that absolute unrelenting realism is the way to go. That means no name tags (already in the game) and no way to know if the person's gun barrel you are staring down when you turn a corner is friendly or not.

I say that once the Bandit morphing stuff is out and clothes are are solely delegated on a player's preference, the game's unrelenting nature will be even more satisfying. Yes it is frustrating having to rebuild your proverbial empire after each death but it is part of what makes Day Z so uniquely thrilling.

Keep your head down and check your six, you'll be fine if you tackle each situation intelligently.

TL;DR version : Banditry will be fine once skins are purely cosmetic.

[Stick32 0]

But then you need to introduce a punishment for playing as someone who doesnt go round killing everyone. As soon as you introduce a punishment for a certain play style' date=' even if it is killing everyone, you remove any incentive there is to play that way. Start punishing player killing and you STOP player killing. Then the mod dies.

[/quote']

I never said anything about punishment. Punishment =/=> consequence. If you view consequence for your action as punishment, that says something about your actions. If I jump of a building I don't curse gravity for punishing me with 2 broke legs.

[LastShenanigan 8]

All your suggestions are moral observations that don't apply in an apocalypse. I've never murdered another player and generally die from being shot in the back' date=' so I'm a "survivor". That said, I could sum up your entire post by saying "Punish Bandits!". I don't agree...

[/quote']

There's not one "moral" observation in there. The entire post is not "punish bandits". It's also "reward/strengthen cooperative play".

In the apocalypse, if you walk around randomly shooting everyone you see, you are not going to be selected for survival long-term. That's a fact. In Day Z, you survive exactly as long as everyone else with this behavior... which is unrealistic.

I think we need to seperate the people who spawn, run, gun and dumb from bandits. There are plenty of players who aren't bandits, who respawn and continuously run into town shooting zombies until they find some loot. Also not effective for long-term survival. Currently, cooperative play is naturally encouarged for survivor and bandit alike. What you suggest is perks for people who play nice beyond the benefits that are already present. I agree that people like Ranger Respawn should be addressed. I don't think any magical god points should be rewarded for being friendly. I prefer my apocalypse full of danger and tense social interactions. As it stands there are plenty of "survivor" groups that headed north, got geared, got bored and now run around murdering people. Also, working together isn't beneficial in every situation. Adding rewards for working together that don't exist in reality is an observation of morality.

Rewards for working together don't exist in reality? News to me. Last I checked having a good reputation was quite valuable, and would remain so in a Zombie apocalypse situation. Since the only way to really "team up" effectively is to "bring your own friends" I don't see why handing a player who very rarely murders other humans a free compass or an upgraded backpack every couple of re-spawns would really be "unrealistic".

Let's look at it this way:

Player 1 wants to run around and shoot people for the lulz. Level of satisfaction with Day Z? 100%.

Player 2 wants to test his skills in a realistic zombie apocalypse that allows for banditry and cooperation. Level of satisfaction? 100%... until he runs into Player 1 50 or 60 times, then more like 50%.

I don't want the game to become "coop players are God" or "Coop players start with an MP5SD and 10 mags"... just want it to take a couple short steps away from "Call of Duty w/ griefing"

I hear what your saying (typing). That said respawning with a better backpack and a compass for playing nice doesn't really encourage me to group up again and paints a huge target symbol on me for people who prefer the fast road. People with extreme humanity differences having different respawn zones they're allowed is a possible solution. I think if melee weapons are ever added they could be made common along the coast and firearms made a bit rarer in spawn areas. The real problem may be you simply spawn too capable to need other players.

[Jamesbiff 4]

OK. You NEED to stop addressing these problems like this is a normal game.

Dayz ISNT a game, it is more of a social experiment than a game in my eyes, even now in its infancy.

What you have here isnt a set or rules or parameters to play by. There is no back of the box blurb detailing what will and wont happen. This is an open ended, emergent, virtual experiment. As such the normal laws of video game design do not apply. What you need to design for here, is human nature. If you just introduce arbitrary parameters to curtail certain activities youre letting the development influence the game. Games like these are made special by the entirely hands off approach Rocket has taken to player morality and interaction.

I will reiterate. This is an ALPHA, what you are analysing here is an incomplete product, Rocket has stated on numerous occasions that this is nowhere near completion. My suggestions is you leave player interaction alone, just dont touch it at all. Introducing mechanics that give you random stats based on gameplay just wont work, it will bend the entire fabric of what makes this game special until you have an endless list of mechanics, consequences, exceptions, rewards etc that dilute the experience.

People are killing each other, not because of some lack of law and order or rampant malevolence, but because of what the game promotes. What, you think that anything you have suggested will stop people killing each other? laughable. EvE online has the highest learning curve and some of the steepest consequences for being an asshole, but people still do it, its a daily occurance and it has NEVER lulled. I used to be part of a corp that was specifically organised to rob people blind. We were obliterated at every turn, we were hunted to the ends of the galaxy, but we persisted time and time again. My point is, youre not looking at this from a logical stand point. Merely at what will make your life that little bit easier, i dont care if that was your intention or not, but you have not once suggested a counter balancing mechanic to even the odds. To maintain the status quo and the success of the mod you cannot design for one gameplay style and leave the other untouched, if banditry moves your spawn point away from the coast or attracts zombies, what set back do you propose for people who DONT partake in banditry?

[Stick32 0]

My 2 cents' date='

I came to Day Z hoping to remain a survivor with a bunch of clan mates who would all cooperate to survive, settle down somewhere in the woods and scavenge and live off the near by land.

That dream has been impossible to realise as I have had to kill to survive. I now am a cold blooded bandit solely due to the fact that no one outside my clan seems to be trust worthy. I've been shot at and killed by players many more times than falling to the zombie plague.

Yet I wouldn't have it any other way. I have learnt and developed my views through out the last 6 weeks or so I've been playing. I believe that absolute unrelenting realism is the way to go. That means no name tags (already in the game) and no way to know if the person's gun barrel you are staring down when you turn a corner is friendly or not.

I say that once the Bandit morphing stuff is out and clothes are are solely delegated on a player's preference, the game's unrelenting nature will be even more satisfying. Yes it is frustrating having to rebuild your proverbial empire after each death but it is part of what makes Day Z so uniquely thrilling.

Keep your head down and check your six, you'll be fine if you tackle each situation intelligently.

TL;DR version : Banditry will be fine once skins are purely cosmetic.

[/quote']

See, this excuse I don't really buy... I've been a survivor since I started playing this game. I've been killed several times (by people in survivor skins just as often as bandits). I've been alive for over a week now. I play smart, remain hidden, don't take unnecessary risks, only trust people once they have shown they are trustworthy. Fire my weapon IFF (IF and only iF) I feel I am in immediate danger. I'm sitting close to 3k Humanity before they pulled the system.

What I see more often than not is people saying, "oh poor me I had to defend myself and got tagged as a bandit..." which sux I'll admit but usually what follows is "... So now that the game says I'm a 'bandit' I'll start acting like one." Then they get pissed because people treat them like bandits.

Personally I thought the system needed tweaking, it didn't need to be pulled completely.

[Flex_Relax 0]

A think the problem at this stage is that a lot of survivors simply don't want do team up. I've notice that more and more survivors will shoot you on sight now, or at the moment you turn your back hehe.

But i've also played in coop with some random survivors i've encountered and had a great time.

In real life, for example if you're fighting for your life alone and you encounter someone doing the same on an hostile environment, chances are you'll probably team up. Finding someone it's a joy because no one wants to stay alone in the middle of an apocalipse.

I really don't know how much survivors are killing each other, but if your always alone in an hostile environment you shouldn't be able to survive for too long. Even if your doing the right things, soon enough you'll crave for human contact, you'll start getting a bit crazy and you're gonna make mistakes that will cost you your life.

I don't have a problem with bandids or survivors who just wanna kill you, maybe it will pass and with time players will start cooperating more. From a realism perspective i think coop is indeed important.

[LastShenanigan 8]

This is the one thing that worries me

Alive Characters: 80459

Bandits: 8544

Thats not a huge % of the player base as is...

If everyone felt a change was necessary it'd be one thing. Right now though it looks like some of us may be making sweeping judgements about the entire mod based on our own experiences.

[Stick32 0]

OK. You NEED to stop addressing these problems like this is a normal game.

Dayz ISNT a game' date=' it is more of a social experiment than a game in my eyes, even now in its infancy.

What you have here isnt a set or rules or parameters to play by. There is no back of the box blurb detailing what will and wont happen. This is an open ended, emergent, virtual experiment. As such the normal laws of video game design do not apply. What you need to design for here, is human nature. If you just introduce arbitrary parameters to curtail certain activities youre letting the development influence the game. Games like these are made special by the entirely hands off approach Rocket has taken to player morality and interaction.

I will reiterate. This is an ALPHA, what you are analysing here is an incomplete product, Rocket has stated on numerous occasions that this is nowhere near completion. My suggestions is you leave player interaction alone, just dont touch it at all. Introducing mechanics that give you random stats based on gameplay just wont work, it will bend the entire fabric of what makes this game special until you have an endless list of mechanics, consequences, exceptions, rewards etc that dilute the experience.

People are killing each other, not because of some lack of law and order or rampant malevolence, but because of what the game promotes. What, you think that anything you have suggested will stop people killing each other? laughable. EvE online has the highest learning curve and some of the steepest consequences for being an asshole, but people still do it, its a daily occurance and it has NEVER lulled. I used to be part of a corp that was specifically organised to rob people blind. We were obliterated at every turn, we were hunted to the ends of the galaxy, but we persisted time and time again. My point is, youre not looking at this from a logical stand point. Merely at what will make your life that little bit easier, i dont care if that was your intention or not, but you have not once suggested a counter balancing mechanic to even the odds. To maintain the status quo and the success of the mod you cannot design for one gameplay style and leave the other untouched, if banditry moves your spawn point away from the coast or attracts zombies, what set back do you propose for people who DONT partake in banditry?

[/quote']

If I'm not mistaken what Rocket was trying to accomplish here was a RL whatif simulator for a zombie apocolypse. Last I checked their are consequences for actions in RL. When I die, I'm dead, game over. There is no respawn button. The closest thing you could do that in an 'experiment' is to ban the GUID when someone dies. If you wanted another go you would have to purchase a new copy and reinstall the game/mod.

I agree he wasn't trying to make a game. He might have tried to make an experiment, but he made an experimental game. As for your second point, aren't you arguing to protect the status quo in this ALPHA as you so love to point out how is your arguing for no consequences different for my arguing for consequences? I agree we need to try and keep this game as pure as we can, but to continue to try and strip away consequence without destroying realism is impossible. It needs to be done but we do need to be careful how we do it.

I find it funny in one in one moment your claiming this isn't a videogame and in the next your comparing it to other videogames, but I digress...

For your Eve analogy, correct me if I'm wrong, but in that game don't you have a fixed name or some identifying feature? Your corp name perhaps? That others can see and immediately remember, "HEY! that guy stole all my credits yesterday! let's kill him!!" If so, Here is where your analogy fails... In this game... there is no unique name. The only Unique identifier we have isn't visible to the survivor. Most veteran servers don't even have names show up. Even if they did their is nothing stopping me from logging out changing my name and logging back in. Or hell, just move to another server. I'm sorry but there is even more consequence in Eve for your actions than is even POSSIBLE in this game.

My point still stands.

[BootsofPain 0]

See' date=' this excuse I don't really buy... I've been a survivor since I started playing this game. I've been killed several times (by people in survivor skins just as often as bandits). I've been alive for over a week now. I play smart, remain hidden, don't take unnecessary risks, only trust people once they have shown they are trustworthy. Fire my weapon IFF (IF and only iF) I feel I am in immediate danger. I'm sitting close to 3k Humanity before they pulled the system.

What I see more often than not is people saying, "oh poor me I had to defend myself and got tagged as a bandit..." which sux I'll admit but usually what follows is "... So now that the game says I'm a 'bandit' I'll start acting like one." Then they get pissed because people treat them like bandits.

Personally I thought the system needed tweaking, it didn't need to be pulled completely.

[/quote']

I know it sounds a bit redundant now but I did originally turn bandit due to self defense (gun-ho makarovs) and turn to become a true bandit due to the fact that people will almost always shoot me before I can cooperate.

I did at one point bump directly into a survivor and spammed friendly over side channel till he felt safe. I then escorted him around Eleck, gearing him up to tackle the world ahead. I gained no new gear or ammunition etc only the sense of satisfaction in helping a new player.

I think with the removal of a "bandit skin" I will be able to take the moral high ground (like the above example) in some situations as opposed to my current situation where I have to shoot first to guarantee my survival.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

by moving all the bandits away you are making the game safer/easier for survivors and punishing bandits by making it more difficult for them

I don't follow? how is grouping the bandits together make it more difficult for them? Are you saying it's not fair that your not allowed to drop a wolf in the middle of a herd of sheep?

Seems to me your just wanting to make it easier for bandits who don't give a shit about dieing to be able to harass someone who does care about dieing.

it makes it more difficult the exact same way having bandits near survivors is difficult

if you are still at the coast and you give a shit about dieng then you fucked up

[ErwinRumble 33]

So much win

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

My 2 cents' date='

I came to Day Z hoping to remain a survivor with a bunch of clan mates who would all cooperate to survive, settle down somewhere in the woods and scavenge and live off the near by land.

That dream has been impossible to realise as I have had to kill to survive. I now am a cold blooded bandit solely due to the fact that no one outside my clan seems to be trust worthy. I've been shot at and killed by players many more times than falling to the zombie plague.

[/quote']

no... it is completely possible to do that, you just need to find a better spot (any where far up north)

[aLmAnZo (DayZ) 21]

1, 2, 3 and 4 was very good ideas! 5 was kind of stupid.

[poisonman 28]

I've come to the conclusion this guy is a idiot, seriously dude? most servers have 50 players max on them, some less, the map is huge... have you looked at it?

http://www.maplib.net/fullmap.php?id=14237&legend=1

Welcome to Chernarus, a 225 km2 open world post-soviet state.

TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE SQUARED KILOMETERS!!!! Do you realize how big that is? and how small of a area your bitching about? Sounds like you haven't even seen 1/1000th of the map. If you move away from the coast where everyone spawns you will probably won't run into bandits anymore.

I mean its simple logic, 225 km2 and only 50 players per server, very high chances if your not ON TOP OF THE PLAYER SPAWN POINT, that you may not even see another player your whole damn play session unless you are grouped with them, or if you choose to seek out other players.

And I'm also glad that at one point in this totally useless thread you even labeled your "brilliant idea" as "segregation", here is a history lesson, it doesn't work, ever hear of "separate but equal"? How did that work out in the end?

That and I like how you mentioned UO, most people that loved that game, the freedom, the openness of it, and the PVP. People left in droves after they announced their "segregation" patch that broke the world into Trammel and Felucca or whatever. Sure the game is still running now with active subs, but it still doesn't erase the fact that it killed the game for many.

/thread

[Evilsausage 87]

I thought the idea about Zombies prefering bandits over survivors was hillarious. I loled so hard man....

Yeah bro that shit makes so much sense.

It get extra funny when you read one of his quotes:

Day Z is awesome, let's quit being all "omg carebear" and strive for better realism.

So realism is Zombies prefering bandits? Does the Zombies have moral values or something or does bandits just taste better because they have access to more beans :D

[MartinAtome 0]

anti-bandit procedure:

1-spawn

2-look at the sea

3-turn 180°

4-run for 15 mins

5-enjoy

people complaining of pvp are just too lazy to travel and loot small villages, that's all

[SilverWeed 0]

New to the forum but my two cents:

Reward Survivors for making good survival decisions

Reward Bandits for making good bandit decisions

Plenty of ways of going about it, but the devs hopefully have clear definitions for each of these roles and know how to execute on this best.

I personally find being a survivor harder to maintain than being a bandit, and I like being a survivor for the perceived additional challenge. This may not be necessarily true though, since only two bandits have successfully attacked me and lived - 2 out of 4, and yes I died all four times (would have probably only died three times if I could get the bandit's damned backpack open before I bled out).

Ultimately the bandit/survivor mechanic isn't on my mind as much as the wealth of bugs and unfinished designs that come with any mod, mods which by definition are free of charge. It's awesome to see this level of debate for such a niche game regardless.

[JudgeX 1]

Well, after reading these replies, I have to say I'm not impressed. If you're striving for realism in this game, the more similar it is to Quake, the more off the mark it becomes.

That being said... if you think the game is fine the way it is and think banditry isn't a problem when bandits suffer literally 0 repercussions on death, but cause massive repercussions by killing, then, you're voting for the game to be YADM (Yet Another Death Match).

I just thought that the game was extolling much, much more than that, and a system that promoted REALISM would be a little more rewarding for people who acted REALISTICALLY.

But I suppose many of you think the zombie apocalypse would be much like a deathmatch. That's okay.

I just had a slightly more advanced vision of it... where banditry produced dynamic, dramatic, memorable encounters, rather than pitiful little shit-stain pop-shots from A.D.D. 15 year olds with infinite, meaningless lives and angsty attitudes.

[goldblock 7]

I see what you're getting at; that it's meant to be a zombie survival mod with pvp but it's actually becoming more of a pvp mod with zombies.

From what's been said up to now however I don't think you should expect much to be introduced to limit pvp. It doesn't seem like Rocket wants to get involved in it.

I think much of your "bandit problem" can be alleviated through greater use of tents. Those who tend towards the survivor role seem to enjoy the process of venturing out to find stuff. Collecting and gathering. Once tent use becomes more mainstream the pain of being pk'd should be much less severe as you'll only be losing your 'working gear' and you can still rush back to your stash and gear up a new guy.

Can you store a tent in a tent? It would be a sort of solution.

Remember also that once the mod is finished there'll probably be much more leniency towards different rulesets for servers or even sub-mods and custom versions of Dayz, as there are with cti etc.

So if a section of the playerbase want an altered rule set I'm sure there will eventually be a way to cater to that.

[septuscap 42]

I never said anything about punishment. Punishment =/=> consequence. If you view consequence for your action as punishment' date=' that says something about your actions. If I jump of a building I don't curse gravity for punishing me with 2 broke legs.

[/quote']

This is the problem with carebears. And yes this specific mentality is carebear. Example: "It's not punishment if non-murderers start with gear and murderers get started further away from the easiest cities to loot!" You honestly believe this, that is why you, JudgX, etc, are carebears.

That said, I do sympathize with the issue of not being able to be friendly even if you WANT to be. And the reason is the lack of time. On meeting a stranger, he will either shoot you (bandit) or not (survivor), but you can't risk the former so you must shoot first. Thus even if you KNOW the player is a friendly you must shoot him because you know he will act on the same premises.

There are a few ways around this:

We could offer players a way to holster their weapons (just as in real life, it's a lot easier to test the waters if there aren't guns pointed everywhere).

We could have a few towns WITHOUT zombies where players can at least TRY and maintain order with one another while also having the cover of buildings, etc.

We could also have names on mouseover within "facial recognition" distances of a few meters to make up for the fact that we all have the same models+skins (I can't even tell if the guy I run into is my buddy or not -- I have to make a guess based on whether the gear & sunglasses match what I know him to have, or more generally just always roll together and know each other's location). Add a few options in the "P" menu; in addition to muting players, you can let people tag them friendly, pk, etc, so the mouseover is color coded based on your own preferences -- maybe even let players share "blacklists" with one another.

Allowing players to foster trust is a good idea I think. Trying to have the game judge pk's vs self defense (impossible) and tossing PvE'ers in the easy part of the map with gear on respawn is just pathetic. Not only do you punish the most thrilling aspect of the game (PvP), you also create an environment of baiting (run in front of people so they kill you and get punished, shoot them in the foot, or even in the air around them so they shoot you in "self defense" and are punished, Aggro zombies onto players or annoy them in any # of ways where they won't want to "waste" their daily allotment of murders on you, etc). These kinds of idiotic systems always end up frustrating the playerbase.

[jwguy 0]

I like how arguments against this topic are usually:

"This game is designed to be a realistic PVP apocalypse game. Any consequences for spawn-sprint-shoot, even realistic ones, are bad!"

[JudgeX 1]

I never said anything about punishment. Punishment =/=> consequence. If you view consequence for your action as punishment' date=' that says something about your actions. If I jump of a building I don't curse gravity for punishing me with 2 broke legs.

[/quote']

This is the problem with carebears. And yes this specific mentality is carebear. Example: "It's not punishment if non-murderers start with gear and murderers get started further away from the easiest cities to loot!" You honestly believe this, that is why you, JudgX, etc, are carebears.

That said, I do sympathize with the issue of not being able to be friendly even if you WANT to be. And the reason is the lack of time. On meeting a stranger, he will either shoot you (bandit) or not (survivor), but you can't risk the former so you must shoot first. Thus even if you KNOW the player is a friendly you must shoot him because you know he will act on the same premises.

There are a few ways around this:

We could offer players a way to holster their weapons (just as in real life, it's a lot easier to test the waters if there aren't guns pointed everywhere).

We could have a few towns WITHOUT zombies where players can at least TRY and maintain order with one another while also having the cover of buildings, etc.

We could also have names on mouseover within "facial recognition" distances of a few meters to make up for the fact that we all have the same models+skins (I can't even tell if the guy I run into is my buddy or not -- I have to make a guess based on whether the gear & sunglasses match what I know him to have, or more generally just always roll together and know each other's location). Add a few options in the "P" menu; in addition to muting players, you can let people tag them friendly, pk, etc, so the mouseover is color coded based on your own preferences -- maybe even let players share "blacklists" with one another.

Allowing players to foster trust is a good idea I think. Trying to have the game judge pk's vs self defense (impossible) and tossing PvE'ers in the easy part of the map with gear on respawn is just pathetic. Not only do you punish the most thrilling aspect of the game (PvP), you also create an environment of baiting (run in front of people so they kill you and get punished, shoot them in the foot, or even in the air around them so they shoot you in "self defense" and are punished, Aggro zombies onto players or annoy them in any # of ways where they won't want to "waste" their daily allotment of murders on you, etc). These kinds of idiotic systems always end up frustrating the playerbase.

Ehh, you said carebear again so I didn't read the rest of your post. I think those who support my position have made it clear that we're not carebears.

A carebear is someone who wants to reduce PVP in a game or make it only consensual, or avoid it altogether. No one said anything of the sort. Mild starting location segregation is not a carebear concept in a game that is meant to have some element of cooperation. It is an attempt at preserving that cooperation in a realistic and manageable fashion.

[[sot]sqwurl 3]

you parachute in at a random spot on the map. problem solved.

[septuscap 42]

Ehh' date=' you said carebear again so I didn't read the rest of your post.

[/quote']

Well then you're missing out.

A carebear is someone who wants to reduce PVP in a game or make it only consensual' date=' or avoid it altogether.

[/quote']

No a carebear is some one who wants to punish PvP types and reward non-PvP types, which is exactly what each of your ideas entailed. Only the most extreme of carebears want no PvP at all.

In any case, if you read my post you'll see plenty of ideas for organic interaction (as opposed to pre-made groups over voip & killing anyone else you encounter in game), which the game should definitely allow for (and currently doesn't).