The PvP Discussion Thread

[Palora 6]

If you wanna be a bandit, be a bandit, don't be an asshole.

Learn the difference: A bandit kills only when he has to, an asshole is an asshole. You can't claim you've killed 5 guys for their ammo, because most of you have better weapons and all of you have enough ammo (especially after the first 2 guys you kill), so don't claim your griefing is something else.

Less resources might work, if it means less bullets, but you can't apply real life logic, because in real life, the retard that climbs into the tower and starts shooting everyone stays dead when he gets killed eventually, he doesn't respawn so he can do it again.

Have no humanity loss for killing bandits, that way all the bandits are bandits, and not 'a victim of self defense'.

I do agree that having bandits around does adds (or will add) an extra layer to the 'survival' formula but what we have now are mostly retards killing people because they can (and they arn't banned for it).

If you remove humanity loss for bandit killing and ban people for a time (or send zombies in the area after them) if they drop bellow a specific humanity threshold it might decrease the griefing and might make it more interesting to be a bandit. (Because you'll have to balance your kills to your needs and the danger of a ban/horde). Of course it might not work, but as it is, it's not working anyway, it's alpha go wild, try anything that might work.

P.S. Make good weapons (assault rifles and up) require effort and exposure to danger to acquire. Have them randomly in military zones with lots of zombies around. Logically people would go to where the military is, and bring zombies with them, which the military will shoot and thus attract even more zombies until they get overrun. (Checkpoints would/should have very little ammo). Don't have them, their ammo and other good stuff (nvgs) in places zombies cannot reach (Up ladders).

[Redrick (DayZ) 72]

Wow, more then half the player population are bandits? Even taking the "Self defense" argument into account for a few hundred, that still leave a damn good amount of bandits.

[Atkins (DayZ) 4]

I wonder what is the average time the bandits have played. I could imagine most of them are just ppl who joined, trolled, and left after they got shot.

On a different matter;

I suppose u can alt+f4 anytime from the game and you will spawn next time either at the last save point or at the place where u altf4d. So there is nothing stopping u to quickly quit if u get hit once and come back later or spawn to a different server, patch urself up and continue like nothing happened. Same goes if u r running away from Zs. I haven't tried this yet but if it is possible, it will be abused.

[Panzerfaust (DayZ) 5]

I think you people need to remember that the devs are treating this as a societal breakdown survival sim, not some silly MMO where there's a set in stone PVP system. The game is meant to be brutal and emergent by design and if you can't live with it, then please find something else to play.

Finally found the dev quote I was trying to get a hold of. The people on here whining about PVP should probably read this.

Rocket on BIS Forums:

To clarify:

Not going to remove or even restrict PVP. The intent of this whole mod is to provide you choices, the intent of the planned change (humanity) is to provide some impact of those choices. There's not "punishment" for PvP, but doing alot of PvP will cause your character model to become a "bandit" model. This will make you recognizable as the type of role you have taken on. Your choice in the world is whether you want to retain your humanity, or whether you want to survive. The two are not mutually exclusive, but sometimes you come to a situation where you will need to make a choice.

My whole intent, with the entire game mode, was to make a situation where real human emotions are forced out and experienced - both the good and the bad. My experience in the military taught me sometimes the most rewarding moments come when things were the hardest, when terrible things happened, but they were overcome. My key intention was to make something very brutal, almost cruel, for those like me (I'm the kinda guy who always turns the difficulty right up to max) who want to experience real human emotion (be it absolute frustration, defeat, anger - through to happiness and excitement).

I guess what I am saying, is it has not been about "gameplay balancing" (which is not my best area), but about forcing the player to make choices, some of which are cruel, some of which are not balanced at all, and some of which can easily lead to no win situations. In fact, I didn't even intend it to feel like a game. I prefer the term "anti-game" because I've broken many of the "rules" of gameplay. But personally, I think that's why it is enjoyable even in its very broken and basic state.

[puppetmasterjjk 3]

Thank you, Panzerfaust, my thoughts exactly. It's good to see that Rocket wants the same thing out of the game that I do, however I find it unfortunate that the bandit system is even in place. It does not represent what the player has chosen to do, but rather tells everyone what the player has done. If the bandit model/other models were put in place as a simple menu choice that players can make, then it would actually somewhat reflect their style without automatically alerting whoever sees them about what their attitude is. This, instead of the current humanity system, which gives players a predisposition toward bandit-modeled players, as if you can somehow know how many people someone has killed or their intentions by how they look.

Real human emotions come out in the mod from having no idea about what the other person's intentions are, except from what you've observed by their actions. The bandit system is counterproductive when it comes to bringing out real emotion from players.

[Panzerfaust (DayZ) 5]

I think that the bandit system is a good idea overall in theory, but that the current implementation is broken. Currently, a single murder is generally more than enough to put you into bandit territory. I think three or four murders is much, much more realistic to qualify for bandithood. That way, regardless of what the player has chosen to do, their past actions will still have an effect on how they are perceived by other players, and I think that's something everyone should keep in mind and is very important given the overall design philosophy with this mod.

[bodycount 83]

If more than 50% of the player base is rocking the bandit skin why even bother having it in game at all?

[snypr18 2]

I think the main issue here is people who get a couple rifles and then grief the players who just spawn in.

It is not PvP, it is not being a bandit, it is being a bully and an asshole. You are doing nothing but trapping players on the beach, erasing what little hard-earned progress they have over and over, and denying them full participation in the mod.

And no, it is not realistic. Even in a zombie apocalypse, even if you are a serial killer, its not like the entire population of Chernarus is going to keep magically appearing on the beach for you to get your lulz from.

[oktyabr 53]

I worked hard to talk to of my friends into buying Arma2:CO and installing this mod. Here is what one had for a first experience:

Word to the wise, don't play this game at night if it's your first time. I loaded in, and I couldn't see a damn thing. I started off by some coastline, from the moonlight I could see a lighthouse off in the water, and what looked like some fence line, and a huge crane. I'm thinking since I'm near the coastline I must be near a small harbor or something.

I followed the coastline until I came to a fence, then I started following the fence inward, until I heard something breathing. Lucky for me I was crouched the entire time, cause as I turned around there was a ******* Zombie probably about thirty feet from me if that.

A few seconds later I see some red glowing coming towards me, and the Zombie, then gunfire. I took off running, while they shot the Zombie. Ran back to the coastline, and hide next to, or under a wall, or something. I couldn't tell it was so dark. Then I hear voices "I saw him run this way, he's around here somewhere!" I stayed hidden for about fifteen minutes, or so until it seemed safe. I continued to follow the coastline some more, and came to another wall or, something. Again it was to dark to tell, but I could hear flies. Flies are a sure sign that I'm near something rotting, but I couldn't tell what.

So I logged off there.

[puppetmasterjjk 3]

Why didn't he just wait and evade the players? It was night time, so he wouldn't be easy for them to spot if he was patient. That's too bad that he gave up on an opportunity like that, but I guess that style didn't really suit him, it is a pretty thrilling way to start. Is he going to log back in and get to somewhere safe?

[oktyabr 53]

Heh, that was from a little while back. He did say it was thrilling, and said he had to go to bed anyway but... maybe just a little too much for a new player (I wrote my survival guide for him and a few others). He, another friend of ours and I are planning on giving it another go this weekend when we have more time. I'm no l337 player but I've got enough experience to maybe guide them a bit without getting us all shot on the beach.

[ghost_kage 5]

I would never want to see the PVP component removed. Rather I'd like to see the non-PVP aspects improved and made more complex. This should be a fun game to play even if you are the only one on the server and yet I read a lot of comments (in this thread and others) where people use the words "bored" and "dull" a lot... When PVP is the most exciting game in town it's the one that everyone will want to play. When PVP is the best game in town (the most exciting aspect) it will attract PVP'ers. When zombie survival is the highlight you will see more people playing to survive zombies.

I think Oktyabr made the best point from what I've read. There shouldn't be magical systems in place that keep people from PVPing, but rather increasing the non-PVP aspects. I think if they added some more elements to the game like herds of zombies that wander around, or maybe even benifits for grouping up with players, it would reduce the amount of random PVP. Perhaps a system where you could 'invite' a player to join a group, instaly showing you have friendly intentions, and also maybe giving group benifits. Perhaps you move more stealthy as a group? More loot drops? Of course all of these ideas would be difficult to implement from a programming perspective with the ARMA II engine, but their still ideas. :P The PVP creates tension in the game that I haven't found anywhere else, and the only thing I think should be changed is the Bandit aspect, or at least make it harder to reach the bandit level. It should be more like 5 PVP kills as opposed to 2, because players who defend themselves end up becoming a bandit, but if its set to 5 or even 3 or 4, players who are not just crazy PKers can regain their humanity before having to defend themselves again.

[Redrick (DayZ) 72]

Just wait until DC is fixed for everyone, I have a hunch a lot of this mindless PvP and griefing will come to a hault.

[bacon55 (DayZ) 2]

Thank you' date=' Panzerfaust, my thoughts exactly. It's good to see that Rocket wants the same thing out of the game that I do, however I find it unfortunate that the bandit system is even in place. It does not represent what the player has chosen to do, but rather tells everyone what the player has done. If the bandit model/other models were put in place as a simple menu choice that players can make, then it would actually somewhat reflect their style without automatically alerting whoever sees them about what their attitude is. This, instead of the current humanity system, which gives players a predisposition toward bandit-modeled players, as if you can somehow know how many people someone has killed or their intentions by how they look.

Real human emotions come out in the mod from having no idea about what the other person's intentions are, except from what you've observed by their actions. The bandit system is counterproductive when it comes to bringing out real emotion from players.

[/quote']

Except that if taken to it's logical extreme (because assholes DO NOT just stay dead in a game...), the game will be unplayable.

The game will die because no one will want to be fodder for uber 1337 neckbeards with superiority complexes.

EVERY game that's tried to do "friendly fire" or "open combat" has had to deal with this.

In regular Arma, there's the banhammer. Most games don't even bother with FF. Other games with open combat require PVP laddering or something of that nature.

The open "survival" BS isn't going to work, because guess what? It's a f*cking game. And the internet is full of assholes. Just. Chocked. Full. So there needs to be controls. The humanity thing is a good start on that, but there needs to be more benefit to grouping up, and less benefit to being an asshole. The game isn't going to be able to eliminate them, but it can definitely stop them from having unrelenting rampages with advanced weaponry on unsuspecting targets.

[alienfreak 6]

The open "survival" BS isn't going to work' date=' because guess what? It's a f*cking game. And the internet is full of assholes. Just. Chocked. Full. So there needs to be controls. The humanity thing is a good start on that, but there needs to be more benefit to grouping up, and less benefit to being an asshole. The game isn't going to be able to eliminate them, but it can definitely stop them from having unrelenting rampages with advanced weaponry on unsuspecting targets.

[/quote']

You came to the right conclusion but partly with the wrong assumptions:

This type of concept cannot really work because it is a game (as you said). But this is not restricted to people having PvP desires because they can die and just respawn if they get busted.

1. You do not have the level of actions required to survive.

You do not need staches for your tools.

You do not need anything except 3 medicines.

You do not need to clean your weapons.

You do not need a place to sleep.

You have no encumbrance.

You need no place to hide when regenerating.

You need no dry place when it rains.

You need not to worry about firewood or keeping the fire alive.

You do not need to protect yourself from cold.

You do not need to worry about clean water.

Places looted clean respawn so you can just go back and reloot them every freaking hour.

.

.

.

etc. etc.

2. Most importantly:

YOU RESPAWN!!!!!11

So you can just try if you can make it past the horde by crawling.

You can just try to kill all that zombies.

AI is sometimes just dumb. Not reacting. Not entering harbours. Going slow inside buildings.

.

.

.

etc. etc.

All those factors that come into play because it is a game are not limited to PvP.

Imagine people not even PvPing in here. It would just get as boring quickly (even faster) because zombies are no real challenge.

As well as surviving in the wildness is a cakewalk. Get a Crossbow with 2 bolts, a knife, a box of matches (INFINITE MATCHES) and a waterbottle. Now you can indefinatly survive. Its just boring as hell.

But this is about as hard and entertaining as the surviving aspect goes. Run around in the forest, slaugther some rabbits or pigs and go back to a lake to fill your bottle every now and then.

[puppetmasterjjk 3]

Except that if taken to it's logical extreme (because assholes DO NOT just stay dead in a game...)' date=' the game will be unplayable.

The game will die because no one will want to be fodder for uber 1337 neckbeards with superiority complexes.

EVERY game that's tried to do "friendly fire" or "open combat" has had to deal with this.

In regular Arma, there's the banhammer. Most games don't even bother with FF. Other games with open combat require PVP laddering or something of that nature.

The open "survival" BS isn't going to work, because guess what? It's a f*cking game. And the internet is full of assholes. Just. Chocked. Full. So there needs to be controls. The humanity thing is a good start on that, but there needs to be more benefit to grouping up, and less benefit to being an asshole. The game isn't going to be able to eliminate them, but it can definitely stop them from having unrelenting rampages with advanced weaponry on unsuspecting targets.

[/quote']

I don't see how you think a system put in place like "humanity" does anything to stop people from being assholes. It's a lot like how DRM is supposed to stop pirates, when it actually just makes the experience for legitimate customers worse, and the pirates are still free to do as they wish.

What system do you suggest to stop people from going on rampages with powerful weapons? If they've managed to achieve those powerful weapons, then maybe they deserve to be able to pick on the weak and easy targets to survive. Do you think that everyone who kills other players are assholes, or are playing the game "wrong"? Perhaps it's something you have to resort to when you want to survive long enough. Maybe it's just that people are making themselves very easy targets, and thus an easy meal ticket. I've only ever been killed by another player once in my entire Day Z experience and the people I see dying are mostly being careless. Perhaps they need another reason to be careful, since the robberies/murders/predictable zombies aren't enough.

From the sound of it, the best option would be to improve the mod in ways that would encourage teamwork against the zombies. Making the zombies spawn everywhere and have less predictable actions would make people travel more carefully. This way, you aren't limiting the game just because a few people had some bad luck or are bad at surviving against players.

If people are more dependent on one-another to survive (which they should do if they want to survive against hostile players anyway), then maybe the amount of people actively seeking friendship in the environment would increase. The few psychos will still be out there killing whoever they can catch - which is great because without the terror and unpredictability that comes from other survivors, this mod would be boring and empty(in both gameplay and in server occupancy). The psychos would be put into check even more than they already are, however, as more players would be more careful, alert and more likely to be working together.

It's worth noting that the mod is built onto a military simulator. If you don't expect people who know what they're doing ("1337 neckbeards", as you would call them) to be able to dominate others when it comes to survival, then I suggest you have another look. Anyone has a chance against anyone else in this game and it's completely left up to the players. The playing field is even until regulatory "hand-holding" systems are added. Systems which take out the organic nature that makes this mod great.

[Palora 6]

The playing field is even only if you shoot everyone else on sight, if you just wanna group up and survive you've just put your self to the mercy of assholes. There is no way to know or guarantee that the guy up ahead won't kill you when you try to say 'Hi'. 'It's supposed to be like that" true but unless your coming in with some friends and you manage to meet up with them, your going to have to group with a random dude to increase your odds of survival. And it's kinda hard when assholes shoot everyone they see, you can't approach because he might be an asshole or just tired of assholes and not willing to take any chance.

It's to retarded when the server restarts and one or more idiots start killing everyone spawning in around them.

What you are saying is: Be forever on guard and shoot everyone else you meet if you don't want a random asshole related early death. An asshole who doesn't have to be on guard forever, he can just bide his time, play nice, group up until he finds a decent weapon then kill everyone who supported him, and go up a tower and kill everyone he can see. Or just not have the bandit because he's fresh off the retard boat, and your his first victim because you were unlucky to meet him first. Or because you didn't kill him on sight.

Why should the majority suffer and have to play better because some idiots, who can't handle deathmatch, have a retarded, sexual insecure, need to grief?

As for the game becoming boring: How about you don't decide for us if it's boring not to die randomly.

[oktyabr 53]

Imposter!!! What did you do with the Baby Stomper I was arguing with not so long ago?!?! ;)

I actually agree with almost everything you said. The only sentence that made me post this was this one:

then maybe they deserve to be able to pick on the weak and easy targets to survive.

"Survive" being the key word there. I know it's easy to push a topic to one extreme or the other in a debate but what a lot of people are forgetting (or ignoring) is that we are basically all in love with the same mod here. The very pro-PVP side likes to suggest that *anything* should be permitted *anytime* against *anyone*, in the name of "survival". The anti-PVP players, and I really hate that term because I don't think any of us would really want PVP removed, simply want something to reign in the potential for mindless violence, especially the more established players against those new to the game or just respawning.

You actually did a fantastic job outlining what must be done and what effects it might have... I just have an issue with the word "survive" always being used to defend whatever.

[tpenn 9]

What system do you suggest to stop people from going on rampages with powerful weapons? If they've managed to achieve those powerful weapons' date=' then maybe they deserve to be able to pick on the weak and easy targets to survive. Do you think that everyone who kills other players are assholes, or are playing the game "wrong"? Perhaps it's something you have to resort to when you want to survive long enough. [/quote']

You have uberleet weaponz, backpack full of food and ammo to support said uberleet weaponz along with NVG. and your first thought is "ZOMG I GOTTA KILL THAT DOODZ ON DA BEECH CUZ I NEED HIS FLAREZ"

No. Just no.

Call a spade a spade: you're doing it to be an asshole. If this were counterstrike or PR, the common goal is to kill your opponent, so in that context killing other people is positive participation. But if the primary goal though is to SURVIVE and you're just killing for LULZ then that makes you an asshole. End of story. Massage it anyway you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, maybe you're a good guy IRL, or maybe you're just RP'ing an asshole in-game, the matter stands you're an asshole.

And anyone that for a second thinks this is how a real SURVIVAL SIM would play out, you need to check yourself because SURVIVAL in its closest simulation (life, society) has proved time and again the vast majority of "survivors" find overwhelming benefits from teamwork and only a slim minority resort to what we see becoming the majority behaviour in this game. So unless the official backstory here is that the apocalypse happened on an outcast island full of society's unwanted delinquent socipathic killers, this game should be played like a SURVIVAL SIM and not a deathmatch sim. If it's being played as the latter then clearly the simulation rules need to be adjusted.

[Blitzy 12]

The playing field is even only if you shoot everyone else on sight' date=' if you just wanna group up and survive you've just put your self to the mercy of assholes. There is no way to know or guarantee that the guy up ahead won't kill you when you try to say 'Hi'. 'It's supposed to be like that" true but unless your coming in with some friends and you manage to meet up with them, your going to have to group with a random dude to increase your odds of survival. And it's kinda hard when assholes shoot everyone they see, you can't approach because he might be an asshole or just tired of assholes and not willing to take any chance.

What you are saying is: Be forever on guard and shoot everyone else you meet if you don't want a random asshole. An asshole who doesn't have to be on guard forever, he can just bide his time, play nice, group up until he finds a decent weapon then kill everyone who supported him, and go up a tower and kill everyone he can see.

[/quote']

I agree. The dominant attitude in DayZ is currently 'shoot everyone on sight, no questions asked' - mostly because many players have been killed before, simply refuse to trust anyone else now and proceed to kill anyone they see before that person can kill them, whether they intended to or not'.

This behaviour solves nothing; it's merely adding to the problem.

It IS possible to meet up with players (strangers at that, I've met 15-20 in-game and we've now formed a ragtag survivor group that we can all trust). I've found the best experience is not to meet 1-on-1, and instead try and form rendezvous points where groups of people can meet - this combats the risk of shootouts, as a PKer cannot take everyone down without everyone turning on him first.

Meet with guns lowered, and identify yourselves (PKers usually refuse to reveal their location/identity, because they know their victims will publically broadcast who PKers are when they're killed).

Saluting's also a great way of showing peaceful intent quickly without needing to type.

Long story short: there are decent people out there that aren't just going to shoot you on sight, and need trustworthy people to watch their back just as much as you need them. You just have to work out how you can meet up without the risk of being betrayed by them.

Because at the end of the day, when you're injured and bleeding to death, who's going to save you when you need that blood transfusion?

[puppetmasterjjk 3]

What you are saying is: Be forever on guard and shoot everyone else you meet if you don't want a random asshole related early death. An asshole who doesn't have to be on guard forever' date=' he can just bide his time, play nice, group up until he finds a decent weapon then kill everyone who supported him, and go up a tower and kill everyone he can see. Or just not have the bandit skin just yet because he's fresh off the retard boat.

[/quote']

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you get deceived by a guy like that, who that was just tagging along for long enough to murder you down the road and make an easy living, then he was taking a risk (by approaching and joining another group of players who could just as well have been murderers), just as you were taking a risk (by picking up the other player to have as a teammate, knowing he could be against you) in order to survive.

If things worked out for you in that situation, and the guy ended up being a valuable teammate, then the risk you took has been rewarded. If then another person joins your group, who is this time planning to rob you, then the risk you took was a bad choice. Due to the organic nature of the game, however, perhaps the guy you picked up last time will recognize him, or catch him as he goes to attack you. Thus, the risk you took initially, picking up the first guy, rewarded you further down the road when you took a risk another time.

That said, a good tip when encountering other survivors is to observe them for a while if given the chance. If from afar it seems like they would be a liability, then maybe you shouldn't pick them up. If you're approached peacefully by a group, or another player that could have easily ambushed you, then you can probably assume they are somewhat trustworthy.

For the most part, decisions made with human encounters in the mod are intuitive and based on survival*. You shouldn't have to think "oh will my moral points go up or down?" before doing something, but instead think about what risks your taking vs the rewards you may reap.

*That brings me to what Oktyabr said about the survival argument.

Imposter!!! What did you do with the Baby Stomper I was arguing with not so long ago?!?! ;)

I actually agree with almost everything you said. The only sentence that made me post this was this one:

then maybe they deserve to be able to pick on the weak and easy targets to survive.

"Survive" being the key word there. I know it's easy to push a topic to one extreme or the other in a debate but what a lot of people are forgetting (or ignoring) is that we are basically all in love with the same mod here. The very pro-PVP side likes to suggest that *anything* should be permitted *anytime* against *anyone*' date=' in the name of "survival". The anti-PVP players, and I really hate that term because I don't think any of us would really want PVP removed, simply want something to reign in the potential for mindless violence, especially the more established players against those new to the game or just respawning.

You actually did a fantastic job outlining what must be done and what effects it might have... I just have an issue with the word "survive" always being used to defend whatever.

[/quote']

You're exactly right about the use of "survival" to justify everything that is 'PvP'. (I hate using that term because it has some MMORPG implications that don't really match what goes on in DayZ). I guess my choice of wording was wrong there, but I don't think players who have the best weapons and such should just go out of their way to kill other players. What I meant more was that since they've gotten to such a point, they're now powerful enough to get their actual survival needs quickly and easily by picking off easy player targets. Since they're powerful enough, they don't need to consider approaching other players so much to join their group. It would be too much of a risk to their own group to chance encounters with others.

Sometimes the player on player action is completely out of desperation, sometimes the murders are done by players completely for fun or to be assholes, but I would argue that most murders are done for a quick and easy survival fix - it's not completely necessary, but is more convenient than alternative means of survival.

To explain, a player can be presented with a situation like so: You are in the woods at night with a friend and enough supplies to survive for a short while, but you're not desperate. You know that it is a long way to get to any towns, however, and it would be a pain to go loot them at this hour. You come across another survivor who is hanging out right next to his campfire, an easy target at night.

Your options are something like this: You can be friendly with the guy, inviting him to trade or join your group, hoping that he is safe and that maybe he has some extra supplies to help you out. If he joins you, then you can reap long-term benefits. You can be neutral and avoid him, betting that he could be dangerous/desperate/a hindrance and the risk of approaching him doesn't seem worth it, nor does killing him and possibly alerting any zombies or hostile players. You can be hostile yourself, murdering and/or robbing him, knowing well that you will need the supplies in the future and getting them from town can be a gamble, so getting a quick fix now and easily is very tempting.

Going the hostile route is probably so common because of how convenient it is. Most of the time you don't need to add more players to your group, since surviving the zombies and environment as of now, is pretty easy without more than two or three people, and a quick fix is all you and your group need.

This is where the changes to zombies come in. If the environment was more dangerous to players, like with zombies spawning everywhere, gunshots alerting them from further, etc. Then perhaps more people would choose the friendly or neutral routes. Friendly, because it's a lot easier to handle a more widespread and dangerous zombie horde with more group members. Neutral, because risking gunshots can mean certain doom to those involved - especially at night and in the middle of a forest infested by zombies, like this situation.

[Noggin (DayZ) 1]

EVERY game that's tried to do "friendly fire" or "open combat" has had to deal with this.

Agreed totally, true "open pvp" is an unrealistic pipedream and just gives griefers more power, every game that attempts to make a similar claim ends up either 1. limit/eliminate the griefing or 2. Die out.

[bodycount 83]

People are gonna PvP/Grief/Camp/Gank whatever you want to call it no matter what happens they will do it.

Why not give them a reason to actually do it? Make supplies (food/water/ammo/weapons/maps/knives/compass/matches) rare enough that in order to stop that starvation meter you have to either ask that guy for food, team up with him to trade for food, team up to hunt/clear out a town because you don't have enough ammo to do it solo or kill him and take his shit.

It might also encourage better grouping. If you have such a piss poor amount of supplies that you might not be able to search/clear a town out on your own teaming up might be the best option. Or watch that guy in the town clearing it out and try and set an ambush up for when he leaves town and take less risk.

As it is now supplies are just everywhere. I can't go for 5 minutes without stumbling over rifles and mags food water.

When the logistics is heavy there exists no reason to steal from someone. Why break into the jewelry store down the road when it is raining Rolex's.

I know I have said this like 20 times already but I feel it needs reiterating.

[pendelum5 0]

Players need a way to identify hostile survivors. Too often I find myself passing innocent-looking players only to be followed and killed without any warning. Maybe you could track a player's kills/hour played and give them red / dark player models or mouse-over text to identify them as bandits? I'm not really sure how the current system works, so if anyone can please enlighten me.

[griffinz 2816]

This game is pretty much a social experiment.

If you turn off PvP in DayZ, you might get a bit of a shock from what other people do in a real Zombie Apocalypse.

...just sayin'