The PvP Discussion Thread

[ClinClin 1]

I wish I had one of those in real life' date=' ClinClin.

I don't think it's such a great suggestion, to be honest. Does that not remove most of the tension from the game? Is not trusting survivor skins any way stupid enough? We know from anecdotes already that survivors are crafty bastards too.

It's not okay for the game to have only bandits, (Which includes people killing for safety, let me add.) Why is that? Would you like to substantiate that line of reasoning? Is it because you are not a bandit, or because you do not like the playstyle? Why is having a game with primarily bandit types a bad thing? Explain please.

Why is it only interesting to play if the other one exists? Humans. Think of it like that. One big class.

[/quote']

Having only "bandits" is not ok, because it removes the choice of whether to trust others or not. That pre-determines mine and others' actions. Others' intentions should be somewhat of an intrigue. Having only "bandit"-type behaviour removes that intrigue. That makes possible scenarios of interaction between people more limited. As result, the game gets less interesting than it might have been. When I say "less interesting" I mean, for a number of people. It is of course my guesswork (you gotta be a games-theory scientist to make grounded estimates here), but my bet would be that this number of people is significant enough to have impact on the entire game, if they all change their in-game behaviour from "I might take chances with other people" to "there is no point in taking chances with other people". This would not mean the game would become "bad" but it will surely mean it will become "different". I am not sure I would enjoy the way it would become different becuase it has been so good up till recently.

Now, as to possibility to see others' "humanity" level. It is quite intuitive to assume that adding such possibility would "remove most of the tension from the game" as you said. But I think that it should be just the opposite - it would add the tension of not knowing whether the player will choose between maintaining his "good" reputation (and thus, possibly, risk less of getting a bullet from someone to whom he is no actual threat) or just shooting and getting your beans. Knowing that your reputation is visible to others will be that incentive (ok, may be), that would make it more feasible to think before shooting and possibly, deciding agains it. At the moment there is simply no reason for a player not to shoot others on sight. To me, this makes the game less fun. As for you, why should you care for this change I suggest, if you are pre-determined to base you game style on the assumption that others are there just to shoot you? I see no reason for you to care.

[Dinnj 4]

1:

"Having only "bandits" is not ok' date=' because it removes the choice of whether to trust others or not." (Other parts of this section all hinge on this being correct)

2:

When I say "less interesting" I mean, for a number of people. It is of course my guesswork (you gotta be a games-theory scientist to make grounded estimates here), but my bet would be that this number of people is significant enough to have impact on the entire game, if they all change their in-game behaviour from "I might take chances with other people" to "there is no point in taking chances with other people". This would not mean the game would become "bad" but it will surely mean it will become "different". I am not sure I would enjoy the way it would become different becuase it has been so good up till recently.

3:

Now, as to possibility to see others' "humanity" level. It is quite intuitive to assume that adding such possibility would "remove most of the tension from the game" as you said. But I think that it should be just the opposite - it would add the tension of not knowing whether the player will choose between maintaining his "good" reputation (and thus, possibly, risk less of getting a bullet from someone to whom he is no actual threat) or just shooting and getting your beans. Knowing that your reputation is visible to others will be that incentive (ok, may be), that would make it more feasible to think before shooting and possibly, deciding agains it. At the moment there is simply no reason for a player not to shoot others on sight. To me, this makes the game less fun.

4:

As for you, why should you care for this change I suggest, if you are pre-determined to base you game style on the assumption that others are there just to shoot you? I see no reason for you to care.

[/quote']

This is going to be fun. A real argument, at last! I will annotate your quote with numbers and reply to each point here.

1: No. It does not. Having only bandits is just the result of previous choices that have been taken. One cannot become a bandit without making choices. One can stay a survivor without making choices. I'm a bandit. I made that choice, and I still make plenty of choices. It's great.

2: This is pure assumption, and I can only disagree with in a personal "NO, YOU." level, so I will try my best. Based on observations, yeah I know it's shaky ground, this mod has been growing VERY rapidly just the way it is. I think a big reason is the feeling of immersion. The most interesting thing about this is that it gives player freedom. That's why the mod is so popular. Encouraging everyone to buds and go shoot some zombies just L4D 3. There is no point making that.

3: So it is intuitive that it removes most tension from the game. I'm going to take that as a pro to my case. Your point was really up-hill after this. So there's tension because the player might shoot you, and he might want to not shoot you becaues it's risky. Let's actually analyse this.

I see a player on the tracks. If he shoots me, people will treat him worse in the future. It's a good disincentive. If he doesn't shoot me, people may treat him better later on. This will be somewhat of an evaluation of your idea.

All assumptions from here are that people have not yet made choices to be bandits, and the "Visible" humanity is currently at default.

Logical course of action 1:

Let's say he chooses to shoot me any way. That's just the same as the current situation people claim. So let's take this as a neutral point. We both skirt around eachother, and when I'm not looking, he decides to try and open fire on me.

Logical course of action 2:

Let's say he chooses not to shoot me. It doesn't mean that we're going to be walking right past eachother at arms reach. He'll skirt around the edge and I'll skirt around the edge. We'll go our seperate ways. Again, this is the same as current, so let's take it as neutral for now.

With your system, there is more incentive to just ignore each other. Personally, I find it more exciting when the other player decides to try and take me down, and I have to react with little choice but to gun him down. I LOVE that gameplay, it's why I play Day Z.

All it does it shift the more common course of action from 1 to 2. Neither is better than the other, that's just opinion. I find skirting around eachother in utter avoidance (It's still safer to IGNORE other players than it is to run up to them and start asking if they want to trade hats) particularly boring gameplay.

So, so far, we've accomplished switching the style of gameplay from mainly PvP opportunism to PvP avoidance and deterrant.

When everyone has default viewable humanity there's no real difference from now, other than a slight, (I doubt it will even be noticeable, honestly,) shift in playstyle.

All this does is change the gameplay style from the one that the vast majority (By observation) enjoy, to one that the vast minority enjoy. The current system keeps more players happy than the other would, judging by the player base, and it doesn't need extra rules or features to make it work like that, it just is. Why should there be a rule that worsens this balance?

All assumptions from here are that players have made the choice whether they are going to kill others or not:

Okay, at this point, the concept of tension has TOTALLY gone out of the window. Once everyone has been playing for a while, everyone who is ever going to kill people will have poor humanity. Same problem as the bandit skin. Remember, bandit skin = viewable humanity. Everyone shoots everyone because they feel they have no choice. Everyone with low humanity you know will shoot you on default, because they have the skin, or because of their track record. You will shoot everyone for the same reason and it spirals out of control. I really think all you'll do is increase PvP in the longer term.

Best case scenario you split the gaming community into good guys and bad guys, almost like some sort of perverse TDM scenario, rather than anybody could be shooting/backstabbing anybody.

So really, it worsens the situation (In your opinion I would think,) by increasing PvP in the long run to joke levels. It doesn't really do anything positive (In the opinion of the observed majority) in the short run, either. This is why I think it's a bad idea.

Another major problem with it that I have is that it's horrifically unrealistic. Being able to read people's palm like that and know who they are and how they are likely to behave is just weird for a mod aiming at lawless immersion. It's why I have problems with the bandit skin, too.

4:

Because it means that players are forced into banditry by an imposed balancing gameplay mechanic and not by choice. It deducts immersion from the game, and the overall tone. It increases the chances, when you meet someone with viewable humanity or a bandit skin or whatever, that you both fire immediately, just because of a gameplay balance. Because you know you shouldn't be trusting eachother. Rather than increasing the chances of that heart-stopping moment when two survivors run into eachother, and have no idea about the others motives rather than being able to read it off of a number or their clothes.

Decreasing PvP with rules and gameplay balances - BAD.

Increasing PvP with rules and gameplay balances - BAD.

Especially so when it's unrealistic and immersion breaking, and reduces levels of tension. Just let it be organic. Adapt to the mod, don't make it adapt to you. If people are bandits, they made a choice. It's our choices that define us as players in this environment, and dirtying that organic system is wrong.

---

MasterCaution' pid='53212' dateline='1337768496']

Dayz is the real world.

Dayz is not the real world. One major difference is that it is very difficult to identify and remember players' date=' unlike the real world. In the real world, you can spot your friends from half a mile away, just by the way they hold their body and move around.

[b'] You can recognise friends from miles away, I can't, that's impressive not going to lie.

In real life, you can remember a face for years just from a single encounter.

I can't. It's not like people can grow a beard, change their hair, wear a hat, wear sunglasses. I know I'd alternate my appearance if I were a bandit.

In real life you can warn people to look out for someone by describing them "he's about 6" tall, thin, has long hair and a beard". You can't do this in Dayz.

In real life, when a bandit shoots you, you die. In real life, it's very hard to look at someone's profile when they're shooting at you, trust me. I doubt very much whilst you're taking your aim or running for your life, you'd be like, "Ah yeah, that guy's about 5'10, medium build, medium length hair and some kind of beard." It's not like I can't wear a hat.

In Dayz, you can switch between servers and/or change your name to remain anonymous.

In real life, people who are hostile to you, say, bandits, do not walk up to you and tell you their name. In real life you can't look at someone and have their name pop-up over them. You can lie about your name. You can actually change your name. It's not like you can access a database in the apocalypse, any way.

This means that in Dayz, the downside of asocial behaviour (being shunned or even hunted down by other humans) do not apply.

When you wear a hoodie and kick someone in (If you're into that,) chances are they are going to have NO fucking clue who you were. They don't know how tall you were, they don't know what you look like, they don't know your hair colour, etc etc, especially not your name. Multiply this sort of disorentation whilst being shot at by firearms, and the guy is lying down in grass, and has a balaclava on or some shit.

It is perfectly reasonable to want to discuss ways to address this problem, if only for realism's sake.

Just no.

I'd just to mention that I love how you chose the absolutely most irrelevant line from all of his text to address. Do you work in politics by any chance..?

Adding in text to reply to your points in your post, in bold. I apologise if they're not massively serious, because this doesn't really need to be taken seriously, after all, you're replying to one little line from something much larger, which isn't really central to his main point.

[Arnoldio 2]

Today, i got killed by a bandit 3 times in a row. Ok, was interesting. Then i spawn again, kill 3 bandits. They whined. Their tears were delicious.

[madmaxx@madmaxx.info 0]

I think the main problem is that there isnt much incentive to play together with other people. People do what gives them the most personal gain. Currently, that means shoot first to avoid any risk. While I can understand that some people enjoy this, you have to understand that it takes a whole subclass of possibilities away from the game. When I started playing I always thought 'oh another player can I trust him, or not?' this tension is now gone, as I am better off just killing everybody.

Now, I can only speak for me, but this gets boring over time. After six or so hours with my character it really does get boring and I would love to team up, but I wont, because there is a very high chance that I lose my hours of progress if I try to do so.

Now, instead of making pvp more difficult or add negative consequences too it, why not incentivise teamwork and make the risk actually worthwhile? Currently, there are only two incentives for teamwork: blood transfusions and building vehicles. The last is so difficult that it doesnt happen that much anyway. We need more like this. There must be more things in the game that can only be done with multiple people. Creating factions for example. Buiding a base and remove zombie spawn from a small area. More items that can only be used together with other people. Infections from drinking bad water or eating bad food that can only be cured by other players. And so on. This way, you can still play lone wolf if you want, and survive, as long as you are super careful, you can still play bandit, but it now actually makes sense to group up.

//EDIT//

Now that I posted this I think it might actually need its own thread.

[sclera 0]

Whining bandits are so funny.

"wtf i said friendly"

hahaaaaaaaaa

[Dinnj 4]

Currently' date=' there are only two incentives for teamwork: blood transfusions and building vehicles. The last is so difficult that it doesnt happen that much anyway. We need more like this.

[b']Don't see why not

There must be more things in the game that can only be done with multiple people. Creating factions for example. Buiding a base and remove zombie spawn from a small area.

Great idea

More items that can only be used together with other people.

Might work if more specific

Infections from drinking bad water or eating bad food that can only be cured by other players.

Not such a great idea

And so on. This way, you can still play lone wolf if you want, and survive, as long as you are super careful, you can still play bandit, but it now actually makes sense to group up.

//EDIT//

Now that I posted this I think it might actually need its own thread.

Go for it

Good ideas, but please note that people already group up. If I group up with someone, our ability to spot hostiles increases nearly 100%, our ability in a firefight more than doubles compared to either of us on our own, we have twice the carry space, etc. No matter what the benefits of grouping up are, do you think people will attempt it if even a few players still just shoot on sight? Even a few is all it takes. 10% of players, let's say, shoot on sight. The players they shoot will start shooting on sight, eventually, I garantuee it. Before you know it your population is still just shooting on sight any way. At least, that is what I imagine is always going to happen.

People already group up. I have recently started playing a group of ~5. We still shoot everyone on sight. After you've formed groups, the initial tension is lost forever, and once you have enough people to do what you suggest; make a compound, build cars or stuff like that... you now have no further requirement to risk interacting with players. All that buffing groups COULD lead to, is making TS/vent groups much more powerful than they already are. I strongly theorise this could end up in the population consisting of 5 man bandit possés, not that I would'nt love that eventuality.

Still, it's a decent idea, and it sounds like it introduces some cool features.

[AbsolutelyDelicious 1]

There must be more things in the game that can only be done with multiple people. Creating factions for example. Buiding a base and remove zombie spawn from a small area.

Great idea

It would also be great if AI could "guard" the areas. It would help with the persistence.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Zombies should spawn out of different locations, instead of just popping up out of nowhere. A nice-to-have would be to see them shamble out of some of those 'locked' houses we can't walk into. They could pop into existence on the porch (if they couldn't just come shambling out of a doorway) and then shamble, frog-hop or crawl to their areas of influence.

Oh, and I HATE those damn new crawlers. From a distance without a scope, they totally look like vict-- I mean, survivors.

[JohnnyDerp 4]

If me surviving means you not surviving, I'm ok with that.

[Sminky 5]

It needs to be punished / have reason why it's not a good idea

or there needs to be a way to quickly comunicate

I've been killed so many times by randoms, that if i see someone tooled up i assume the worst. I recently killed a guy who must have been franticly typing i'm friendly, which made him an easy target , i felt very bad as his frustration when he post said 'why i was typing friendly'.

The only reason, i didnt read your message in time, and i wont write one myslef as it leaves you too open.

It' still a game with game mechanics, and there needs to be a reason not to kill to mimic the actual reality of not wanting to kill another human rather the n a sprit if this was 'real'

[Dinnj 4]

I wish I could reply to you seriously, Sminky, but you're really just regurgitating what's already been said. That's the line between raising supposed issues/opinions and whining, tbh. I think everyone needs to just take a step back and stop whining.

When DC works fine, everything that we need is there.

It doesn't need to be punished. Says who? Oh yeah, the vast minority.

Less 'balance the game around how I want it to be.'

[madmaxx@madmaxx.info 0]

You should never punish in an open game, you should only reward. Its a game, people play it to have fun or feel accomplishement. You dont get that by punishment, but you do get it by rewards. The only thing you should do to get desired behavior is through positive reeinforcement.

[ClinClin 1]

This is going to be fun. A real argument' date=' at last! I will annotate your quote with numbers and reply to each point here.

1: No. It does not. Having only bandits is just the result of previous choices that have been taken. One cannot become a bandit without making choices. One can stay a survivor without making choices. I'm a bandit. I made that choice, and I still make plenty of choices. It's great.

2: This is pure assumption, and I can only disagree with in a personal "NO, YOU." level, so I will try my best. Based on observations, yeah I know it's shaky ground, this mod has been growing VERY rapidly just the way it is. I think a big reason is the feeling of immersion. The most interesting thing about this is that it gives player freedom. That's why the mod is so popular. Encouraging everyone to buds and go shoot some zombies just L4D 3. There is no point making that.

3: So it is intuitive that it removes most tension from the game. I'm going to take that as a pro to my case. Your point was really up-hill after this. So there's tension because the player might shoot you, and he might want to not shoot you becaues it's risky. Let's actually analyse this.

I see a player on the tracks. If he shoots me, people will treat him worse in the future. It's a good disincentive. If he doesn't shoot me, people may treat him better later on. This will be somewhat of an evaluation of your idea.

All assumptions from here are that people have not yet made choices to be bandits, and the "Visible" humanity is currently at default.

Logical course of action 1:

Let's say he chooses to shoot me any way. That's just the same as the current situation people claim. So let's take this as a neutral point. We both skirt around eachother, and when I'm not looking, he decides to try and open fire on me.

Logical course of action 2:

Let's say he chooses not to shoot me. It doesn't mean that we're going to be walking right past eachother at arms reach. He'll skirt around the edge and I'll skirt around the edge. We'll go our seperate ways. Again, this is the same as current, so let's take it as neutral for now.

With your system, there is more incentive to just ignore each other. Personally, I find it more exciting when the other player decides to try and take me down, and I have to react with little choice but to gun him down. I LOVE that gameplay, it's why I play Day Z.

All it does it shift the more common course of action from 1 to 2. Neither is better than the other, that's just opinion. I find skirting around eachother in utter avoidance (It's still safer to IGNORE other players than it is to run up to them and start asking if they want to trade hats) particularly boring gameplay.

So, so far, we've accomplished switching the style of gameplay from mainly PvP opportunism to PvP avoidance and deterrant.

When everyone has default viewable humanity there's no real difference from now, other than a slight, (I doubt it will even be noticeable, honestly,) shift in playstyle.

All this does is change the gameplay style from the one that the vast majority (By observation) enjoy, to one that the vast minority enjoy. The current system keeps more players happy than the other would, judging by the player base, and it doesn't need extra rules or features to make it work like that, it just is. Why should there be a rule that worsens this balance?

All assumptions from here are that players have made the choice whether they are going to kill others or not:

Okay, at this point, the concept of tension has TOTALLY gone out of the window. Once everyone has been playing for a while, everyone who is ever going to kill people will have poor humanity. Same problem as the bandit skin. Remember, bandit skin = viewable humanity. Everyone shoots everyone because they feel they have no choice. Everyone with low humanity you know will shoot you on default, because they have the skin, or because of their track record. You will shoot everyone for the same reason and it spirals out of control. I really think all you'll do is increase PvP in the longer term.

Best case scenario you split the gaming community into good guys and bad guys, almost like some sort of perverse TDM scenario, rather than anybody could be shooting/backstabbing anybody.

So really, it worsens the situation (In your opinion I would think,) by increasing PvP in the long run to joke levels. It doesn't really do anything positive (In the opinion of the observed majority) in the short run, either. This is why I think it's a bad idea.

Another major problem with it that I have is that it's horrifically unrealistic. Being able to read people's palm like that and know who they are and how they are likely to behave is just weird for a mod aiming at lawless immersion. It's why I have problems with the bandit skin, too.

4:

Because it means that players are forced into banditry by an imposed balancing gameplay mechanic and not by choice. It deducts immersion from the game, and the overall tone. It increases the chances, when you meet someone with viewable humanity or a bandit skin or whatever, that you both fire immediately, just because of a gameplay balance. Because you know you shouldn't be trusting eachother. Rather than increasing the chances of that heart-stopping moment when two survivors run into eachother, and have no idea about the others motives rather than being able to read it off of a number or their clothes.

Decreasing PvP with rules and gameplay balances - BAD.

Increasing PvP with rules and gameplay balances - BAD.

Especially so when it's unrealistic and immersion breaking, and reduces levels of tension. Just let it be organic. Adapt to the mod, don't make it adapt to you. If people are bandits, they made a choice. It's our choices that define us as players in this environment, and dirtying that organic system is wrong.

[/quote']

I will keep it shorter than I initially intended, in order to be closer to the point.

1. More feasible options for interactions - good, less - bad.

2. The tension of whether you will shoot the guy or the guy shoots you has always been a part of the game and still is. However, the tension of whether one will be wanting to shoot you or not - has been there, but is gone. I want that back.

3. Visible humanity will not work as straightforward as you (seemingly?) think. Most people will be having near-zero (plus or minus) humanity. Because they will be killing good and bad guys, in the long run. Or they could have played just long enough without killing no one. Or they might be real bad guys who just killed an equally bad guy. So for most of cases, the humanity level will not be telling much, especially for "average values". It will be telling somewhat more, in case of distant-from-average values, but nothing with a real guarantee. You still won't know for sure, e.g., whether a guy has huge humanity because he's ideological or because he was just once lucky to kill a really "bad" guy.

There will those who will want huge figures for their humanity just for sport. There will be those choosing their victims to regulate their humanity level. Nothing will change for those who want hardcore PvP, except, maybe, deceit-based PvP will become more difficult. Nothing will change for those who decide to stay away from people. But the goal of survival will be added with at least one more factor to consider - you get your incentive for smart choosing whom to kill. That incentive, I think is necessary to counter the already existing one - victim's beans and your immediate safety.

[Dinnj 4]

I will keep it shorter than I initially intended' date=' in order to be closer to the point.

1. More feasible options for interactions - good, less - bad.

2. The tension of whether you will shoot the guy or the guy shoots you has always been a part of the game and still is. However, the tension of whether one will be wanting to shoot you or not - has been there, but is gone. I want that back.

3. Visible humanity will not work as straightforward as you (seemingly?) think. Most people will be having near-zero (plus or minus) humanity. Because they will be killing good and bad guys, in the long run. Or they could have played just long enough without killing no one. Or they might be real bad guys who just killed an equally bad guy. So for most of cases, the humanity level will not be telling much, especially for "average values". It will be telling somewhat more, in case of distant-from-average values, but nothing with a real guarantee. You still won't know for sure, e.g., whether a guy has huge humanity because he's ideological or because he was just once lucky to kill a really "bad" guy.

There will those who will want huge figures for their humanity just for sport. There will be those choosing their victims to regulate their humanity level. Nothing will change for those who want hardcore PvP, except, maybe, deceit-based PvP will become more difficult. Nothing will change for those who decide to stay away from people. But the goal of survival will be added with at least one more factor to consider - you get your incentive for smart choosing whom to kill. That incentive, I think is necessary to counter the already existing one - victim's beans and your immediate safety.

[/quote']

1. Not if they involve popping someone's "goodness" level over them when you aim at them. As sentient creatures, in an open sandbox type world that's driven by players, we can already make a lot of choices. Enough choices, really. Would you also like to say why it's bad if it's realistic? Just to say it's bad is not a real argument.

2. You aren't going to get it with visible humanity.Survivor meets survivor, no information - that's where the tension comes from. Assymetry of information.

3. This boils down to "My theory is better than your theory". However, we've seen from the game so far that you are likely to be incorrect in your assumptions. Note the incredibly high proportion of people who are bandits in the game. It's a very similar system and it went exactly how I said it would. (It was based partly on observation, you see.)

Being forced to 'act smart' and choose who you kill is NOT a good thing. Not if it's because of a game mechanic rule, or an articial unrealistic carrot or stick. Killing people with low humanity is not being smart, it's reading a signpost that says "Shoot this guy". Aim to the survivor with high humanity and read his signpost that says "Don't shoot this guy."

It's just oversimplifying the game totally. Rather than everyone being relatively anonymous survivors, not knowing the motives of others, it's just painting people blue and red. "Shoot the red ones" is not an intelligent approach for a game to take, as we have already seen from bandit skin introduction. The two ideas really are that similar.

Once again I'll say that the major problem I have with it, is that it is SO intentionally unrealistic that I couldn't ever play a game with a feature like that. I just about stomached bandit skins, because at least there was a justification given for why people would dress differently. But to walk around a corner and aim at some guy; to see "Humanity: 1200" I would just stop playing immediately. I can' think of something more immersion breaking. What's the in-game justification?? Everone became telepaths when the outbreak started?

[callousdisregard 2]

Note the incredibly high proportion of people who are bandits in the game.

You feel that 10% is high ?

I think at least 2-5% of those bandits got that way out of self defense, I know that is how I got my skin.

I don't think even 10% of players seeking purely to kill is a high proportion for this game.

[Dinnj 4]

Woah, that's dropped.

I assumed with all the doomcalling in this thread it would be higher. Good catch Caution.

[Jikfive 34]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days and now realize to provide incentives to play as a "good" guy are misguided. I agree that the game should be organic. It will be a good move to get rid of the mandatory bandit skins because it forces players into a narrower set of actions that they could take. Whenever I would see a bandit I would shoot him on sight. Bandits know that, so they are forced to continue their banditry because they know they generally have to shoot first, this system prevents them from getting a chance at redemption. I like the idea of players being able to find skins and change their appearance. This could add a very interesting element to gameplay.

People are still paranoid about deceitful pvp. Getting shot in the back by a seemingly friendly survivor with little warning really deters players from interacting with strangers. I have an idea.

How about people who find dead bodies can examine them and are given information on who killed them. "This player was shot in the back of the head, it looks like the work of JikFive." If I find multiple bodies that are shot in the back by "JikFive" in an area then I can reasonably deduce that Jikfive might be a character that I can't trust because he shoots people in the back. "This player was shot in the front of his chest, it looks like the work of JikFive." If I saw a person shot from the front by JikFive now I would have to question if he shot the man in cold blood or in self defense.

This system could encourage bandit type players to keep playing as bandits to gain notoriety, and it can also reward paranoid survivors with a SMALL piece of inside information that might give them an edge when dealing with aggressive players beforehand, without completely destroying the paranoia about meeting a deceitful stranger.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days and now realize to provide incentives to play as a "good" guy are misguided. I agree that the game should be organic. It will be a good move to get rid of the mandatory bandit skins because it forces players into a narrower set of actions that they could take. Whenever I would see a bandit I would shoot him on sight. Bandits know that' date=' so they are forced to continue their banditry because they know they generally have to shoot first, this system prevents them from getting a chance at redemption. I like the idea of players being able to find skins and change their appearance. This could add a very interesting element to gameplay.

People are still paranoid about deceitful pvp. Getting shot in the back by a seemingly friendly survivor with little warning really deters players from interacting with strangers. I have an idea.

How about people who find dead bodies can examine them and are given information on who killed them. "This player was shot in the back of the head, it looks like the work of JikFive." If I find multiple bodies that are shot in the back by "JikFive" in an area then I can reasonably deduce that Jikfive might be a character that I can't trust because he shoots people in the back. "This player was shot in the front of his chest, it looks like the work of JikFive." If I saw a person shot from the front by JikFive now I would have to question if he shot the man in cold blood or in self defense.

This system could encourage bandit type players to keep playing as bandits to gain notoriety, and it can also reward paranoid survivors with a SMALL piece of inside information that might give them an edge when dealing with aggressive players beforehand, without completely destroying the paranoia about meeting a deceitful stranger.

[/quote']

unless they bury the bodies

[Jikfive 34]

I actually didn't know you could bury the bodies lol.

Thats fine, if they want to bury the bodies that would be great. Increase the time it would take to bury them. They may be loathe to expose themselves while taking care of it. Maybe make a shovel a requirement. Imagine if you are in the middle of burying a body and are discovered by other survivors/bandits. You may have to explain yourself to survivors, or you may just get shot on sight.

True bandits killing for the "lulz" won't take time to bury the bodies. It is a sign of notoriety and a warning to others about how dangerous they are.

What do you think?

[sheppydog 0]

I actually didn't know you could bury the bodies lol.

Thats fine' date=' if they want to bury the bodies that would be great. Increase the time it would take to bury them. They may be loathe to expose themselves while taking care of it. Maybe make a shovel a requirement. Imagine if you are in the middle of burying a body and are discovered by other survivors/bandits. You may have to explain yourself to survivors, or you may just get shot on sight.

True bandits killing for the "lulz" won't take time to bury the bodies. It is a sign of notoriety and a warning to others about how dangerous they are.

What do you think?

[/quote']

I like the idea of the investigation system, and the idea of finding a shovel and longer "hide body" times

[Caius Argentis 2]

Arma II is a terrible engine for PvP, end of discussion.

[callousdisregard 2]

Arma II is a terrible engine for PvP' date=' end of discussion.

[/quote']I think you might want to find another discussion.

PvP is part of ARMA II ( See: Project Reality @ realitymod.com ) and it is certainly a core element of Day Z.

I think what you are really saying is " This isn't like HALO/COD/CSS so therefore it sucks".

A delay timer on hiding bodies would be fantastic and since there is an option to examine bodies I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say Rocket has some super secret squirrel plans for that menu option.

What if you shoot somebody from the side when they spawn in next to you in a store in Zell ?

[ClinClin 1]

1. Not if they involve popping someone's "goodness" level over them when you aim at them. As sentient creatures, in an open sandbox type world that's driven by players, we can already make a lot of choices. Enough choices, really. Would you also like to say why it's bad if it's realistic? Just to say it's bad is not a real argument.

It is not about a number of choices, but a number of feasible choices. There are no feasible choices of behaviour now pretty much other than "ignore, else shoot" or "good looking equipment - shoot if you can" or "can shoot - shoot". I want options motivating me to "not shoot even though I can".

It is not about realism, but it is about being interesting. Figuring out to what extent you may trust people (and, accordingly, ignore, run away, shoot, try to co-operate) is more interesting than being programmed to only one mesure of trust: none.

2. You aren't going to get it with visible humanity.Survivor meets survivor, no information - that's where the tension comes from. Assymetry of information.

Sorry, haven't quite understood you here.

3. This boils down to "My theory is better than your theory". However, we've seen from the game so far that you are likely to be incorrect in your assumptions. Note the incredibly high proportion of people who are bandits in the game. It's a very similar system and it went exactly how I said it would. (It was based partly on observation, you see.)

I may have missed something, but my understanding was that Rocket did not explain what it was exactly that the "bandit" system failed to achieve. I may be wrong, then please correct me.

Being forced to 'act smart' and choose who you kill is NOT a good thing. Not if it's because of a game mechanic rule, or an articial unrealistic carrot or stick. Killing people with low humanity is not being smart, it's reading a signpost that says "Shoot this guy". Aim to the survivor with high humanity and read his signpost that says "Don't shoot this guy."

Several important remarks here:

- You will not be *forced* to act smart. You will be incentivized to. If under the suggested system, you behave like you do now, you will be getting nothing different from what you are getting now. But you'll be getting something different from what you might have got under the new system. No harm to your interest.

- Signposts is exactly something we have now and is something each player with no exception wears. It's just that only the "Shoot this guy" type of signposts are available, and everyone wears it.

It's just oversimplifying the game totally. Rather than everyone being relatively anonymous survivors, not knowing the motives of others, it's just painting people blue and red. "Shoot the red ones" is not an intelligent approach for a game to take, as we have already seen from bandit skin introduction. The two ideas really are that similar.

I cannot comment, as I don't know what was it exactly that bandit skins failed to achieve, in the developer's opinion.

Once again I'll say that the major problem I have with it, is that it is SO intentionally unrealistic that I couldn't ever play a game with a feature like that. I just about stomached bandit skins, because at least there was a justification given for why people would dress differently. But to walk around a corner and aim at some guy; to see "Humanity: 1200" I would just stop playing immediately. I can' think of something more immersion breaking. What's the in-game justification?? Everone became telepaths when the outbreak started?

I don't see a point for you to stop immediately. What would change if you shoot that guy? Anyone wants to shoot you anyway, so what's the loss?

As to realism. Actually, I don't care much about it. After all, the game has zombies in it. What may be less realistic than that? :)

But if you need some realistic-ish justification for visible humanity - you could view the guy with high humanity figure as the one having big number of well-armed, well-informed and narrow-minded friends, if you wish. :)

[Dinnj 4]

Choices are feasible due to their organic nature. You have choices, there will always, and I mean -always- be a superior choice. People will choose the superior option. No matter how hard you try to balance two options (Try to work together vs shoot on sight,) you will NEVER make them perfectly equal, one will ALWAYS triumph. Remember, it only takes ONE player to shoot everyone on sight before it snowballs into everybody behaving like that after learning from this previous experience.

Your idea is identical to the bandit skin system, replacing a skin with a number popping up.

The bandit skin system did not reduce PvP, it increased it.

Realism is not the actual point, it's immersion. If you had a number popping up when you aim at some random guy, the way that that destroys immersion would drive so, so, many players away from this game. To re-iterate where you misunderstood me, tension comes from UNKNOWN INTENTION. You see a player. He sees you. Neither of you know how the other will behave. That is the entire beauty of this mod. Having a number pop up above them that gives all that information away ruins the experience utterly.

TL;DR - You're trying to make a re-hash of the bandit system, which increased PvP in the game. It ruins immersion. It ruins not knowing the motives of other players, thus removing tension.

Incredibly slim potential upside - You get nearly nothing

High pontential downside - End tension, ruin immersion

---

How about people who find dead bodies can examine them and are given information on who killed them. "This player was shot in the back of the head' date=' it looks like the work of JikFive." If I find multiple bodies that are shot in the back by "JikFive" in an area then I can reasonably deduce that Jikfive might be a character that I can't trust because he shoots people in the back. "This player was shot in the front of his chest, it looks like the work of JikFive." If I saw a person shot from the front by JikFive now I would have to question if he shot the man in cold blood or in self defense.

[/quote']

Nope! You have a really good idea but you kind of ruin it just a little bit. It needs work.

Great idea - "This player was shot in the back, with "

Bad idea - "JikFive wuz here"

One increases immersion and is player dependant. The player has to WORK OUT the pattern of kills.

One decreases immersion through telepathy and is not player dependant.

Working out who killed people by finding similar kills - cool.

Being told who killed someone by the game - not so cool.

The other problem is that I am not sure there is a hitbox difference between back and front. Would require heavy engine modding...not sure feasible.

[ClinClin 1]

Problem is, the kind of tension you refer to (and which you suppose might be lost) - does not exist now anyway. Because the only winning strategy now - is to kill others whenever you can. There are simply no situations in the game where it would be otherwise. That is my point. Tell me - am I wrong here? Cause if I am and you point me in what situation the choice of not killing someone you can kill with ease is feasible - well, may be, it will make the game for me still more interesting than it is.

---

Just a related illustration. Suppose, I get wounded by zombies to the point I'm gonna die unless I get help fairly soon. So I decide to ask for help in chat. Question is: what is the point for anyone to help me under the current game mechanics? Answer: none. Reasons: no reward and not worth the risk. Consequence: there is no point for me in asking for help; it will either not work or will attract someone who will just finish me off to take my stuff.