The PvP Discussion Thread

[Dinnj 4]

A lot of people, still, do not shoot first.

If we assume that there is arleady no tension in the game, much of that is accounted for by the idea you are re-hashing (Bandit skin.)

Note addressing the rest of the negatives for the idea is also necessary to give this idea any weight. As it stands, it would be massively detrimental to the mod. It really is just a less immersive version of bandit skins.

---

There is little point to helping you in the current (relatively organic) situation. This is not an inherently bad thing, it's subjective, and the majority like this.

Your idea does nothing to change this illustration, either.

They might want to get their humanity up to help, right? It's still not worth the risk, it sounds like a trap.

If they turn up to help and have a high humanity, there is no real incentive to get it higher. If they turn up with a low humanity, you'll probably shoot them.

[This section is really besides the point though, if you respond, please do not respond to this, but the arguments against the idea I made previously which you have yet to address]

[peetgamer 10]

I saw few weeks ago a topic on a game forum about dayz that discus a this game that have permadeath and survial appocalyps zombie game that drops you in a world with only a few things for survival and you have to figure it out how to survive no guidance or any help kill or be killed.

So i bought the game for 25euro's on steam and start playing to find out i barely survived first few hours.

Should i now complain and start whine and cry about hardcore pvp lol WTF OFFCORSE NOT i knew upfront it was a hardcore pvp game FREE FOR ALL so all who then whine and cry i say eather go play and have fun or leave there is no real in between.

Why you bought the game in first place?

You thought it was about "FLOWERS IN YOUR HAIR MAKE LOVE NOT WAR GAME?"

I dont think so, so you all dont have any right to complain about being pked, if you dont like that go play some pve game with cute little puppys and kittens:P

And leave the DAYZ game to those who wanne have some real pvp fun.

[The Killing Joke 43]

I dont think so' date=' so you all dont have any right to complain about being pked, if you dont like that go play some pve game with cute little puppys and kittens:P[/quote']

I believe Rocket is adding in the ability to kick puppies in the next release. So, you're golden.

:D

[callousdisregard 2]

...the kind of tension you refer to (and which you suppose might be lost) - does not exist now anyway

It most certainly does exist. If I choose to shoot you then my position has been given away and I am now vulnerable to other players.

There is also the distinct possibility that you ( the victim ) are not alone and will now direct your friends to my position to kill me. ( done that twice already myself )

I will grant you that helping some random guy is unlikely but it does happen.

[Dinnj 4]

I was conceding an assumption for sake of argument, to illustrate that bandit skin or rehashing the bandit skin can -only- lead to reduction of player vs player related tension.

... I think you're quoting me, any way.

[Jikfive 34]

I do agree that Dinnj might have a good point and that simply putting a name to a corpse may be a little heavy handed. However, lets continue on this line of thinking because I think it would be cool. During salvage operations survivors should be allowed to find clues as to who or what might be killing their fellow players without completely giving names away.

It would also be cool to have an increased time to bury bodies, IF you are a good guy you can take an even LONGER time to bury a body and give the man a "proper" burial. Putting up a headstone/cross and maybe have a message on the headstone. "Here lies JikFive, He shot at me first. :P" Also giving other survivors a hint as to what your motivations are.

On the flip side bandits can put up bodies on display as a means to marking their territory if they so choose. "Here lies JikFive, an example what happens to all trespassers"

So players ultimately have the CHOICE to put the message on the body if they choose. What "bandit" WOULDN'T want to scrawl their name over every dead body in order to gain some notoriety? What "Good guy" survivor wouldn't take the time to give a proper burial if he could? This could give insight into the burying players mindset that others can find. In the end it would be the players choice on how they play. People wouldn't be forced to bury/display the body, but it would be a cool feature if they did.

[Skates 0]

PvP Is the essence of the game you dumbie, it what makes the game feel the way it does. As if the entire world is against you.

[Jikfive 34]

@Skates so is quake deathmatch. This game has a lot more potential than deathmatch with zombies.

[ClinClin 1]

A lot of people' date=' still, do not shoot first.

If we assume that there is arleady no tension in the game, much of that is accounted for by the idea you are re-hashing (Bandit skin.)

Note addressing the rest of the negatives for the idea is also necessary to give this idea any weight. As it stands, it would be massively detrimental to the mod. It really is just a less immersive version of bandit skins.[/quote']

The people who do not shoot first make less-than-optimal decision. Probably, they are new players, just exploring options.They will learn soon enough that they'd better shoot first.

So, now we play without bandit skins. Did it add tension, really? In my observation, absolutely no. Quite the opposite. The superiority of a "don't trust, shoot first" strategy over other available strategies simply became more apparent than it was, that's all.

And, frankly, I do not think that bandit skin system was that bad. It might have not achieved what it was wanted to by the developers (I am guessing here), but it wasn't detrimental to the game either.

The game used to offer tension of having to figure whether to trust or not (even when survivor met survivor, not bandit). There is no that tension now. Others are enemies, fixed.

As to visible humanity - I can summarize your arguments "against" in two groups: (a) it will remove tension; (b) it's not realistic (if I missed something, please remind, but make sure other arguments do not bottomline to these ones).

I disagree with both arguments. As to realism - in my view, this is not highly relevant, as "realism" is a very subjective thing for a videogame anyway. It may also be a matter of personal taste and I, honestly, do not know whether I may argue about it further. I'll just state this: there are some board and card games that are better real-life simulators (if one uses a tiny bit of abstract thinking), than the vast majority of video games available on the market.

As to tension: no, it will not be removed but rather re-instated. You will, at last, actually have to figure out whether to trust or not, because you will have to take into account both your and the other guy's humanity level. Plus, knowing the other guy's humanity level would not be telling as much as it may seem: you won't really know, what exact strategy led to the guy's humanity level you'll be seeing - you'll have to guess and evaluate chances. Your decision will become as complex, as a "prisoners' dilemma". Now that's tension!

It is intuitive to think that making decisions better-informed makes them easier and less "tense" to take. This is far not always the case and is not going to be the case in Day Z. Same as poker game. You'd think letting people regulate the size of bet would make the game less interesting as it would be telling out the strength of hand. The truth is counter-intuitive: no-limit holdem turned out to be more interesting and "tense" than the limit one. The parallel here is not 100% accurate, but you should be able to see what I am leading at.

UPD. Minor updates, mainly language clean-up (sorry, English is not my native language).

[Dinnj 4]

Choices are feasible due to their organic nature. You have choices' date=' 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.

[b']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

From all rationality, the bandit skin forced players to shoot anybody else on sight, because they knew they'd be treated the same. The survivor skin does not force people to. Probably a third of bandits started in self defense, and moved to shoot on sight. This is a very common observation from player experiences.

This is starting to get VERY circular.

As someone who actually studies game theory and "prisoners' dilemma" concepts at university, you are incorrect. In the same line as;

See bandit --> Shoot bandit

See low-ish humanity --> Shoot

Tension is ultimately subjective. You are re-hashing a copy of the bandit skin but worse. Most players find the gameplay you describe far less tense. That's all there is it on that trail.

Once again, the MAIN problem is breaking of immersion. As I've arleady stated by quoting myself.

---

Immersion breaking is too massive to be acceptable in any way. It is so huge that it will force large numbers of players away. I am not exaggerating. Having a number pop up when you aim at someone will ruin it.

Tension is decreased. The majority of people will agree with this roughly subjective conclusion. Your justifications for it introducing tension are not adequate. All we have are many, many, many player experiences to observe that bandit viewable humanity makes people's intentions more obvious, and that this reduces the main source of tension in the game - not knowing anything about how the player will behave. You are trying to remove that.

You are re-hasing the bandit skin, just not executing it nearly as well. It has the same positive value as that did, and far greater negatives. The devs decided to drop the bandit skin, and it was a far -far- better way to display humanity than this.

I am pretty sure this is inarguable. I think this can be concluded, without having to engage in more utterly circular debate.

[ClinClin 1]

MasterCaution' pid='65719' dateline='1337951336']

...the kind of tension you refer to (and which you suppose might be lost) - does not exist now anyway

It most certainly does exist. If I choose to shoot you then my position has been given away and I am now vulnerable to other players.

That' date=' in essence, is just a matter of how difficult it is to kill me. Same as risk of trigerring a horde of zombies on you or a possibility that if you miss - I may shoot you instead, if I am that good / well-equipped. This tension is about whether you'll be able to kill me and get away with it or not (which many deathmatch games have). It is not the tension of whether to trust or not (which I hope Day Z will eventually have).

Also, the problem you described, is, actually, rather rare in Day Z and is overestimated. Most of time you may be pretty sure about something of the following: (a) no one is around or (b) if anyone around, they will be unlikely to find you, if you run away / hide right away; © they won't necessarily try to investigate, cause it's risk.

MasterCaution' pid='65719' dateline='1337951336']

There is also the distinct possibility that you ( the victim ) are not alone and will now direct your friends to my position to kill me. ( done that twice already myself )

That is quite a distant possibility I would say and shouldn't be a problem for anyone having slight experience in Day Z. I'd say you were quite lucky that you managed to do that twice. Anyway, that's far from being a good disincentive to kill, really. Just do it quick, loot quick, run away.

MasterCaution' pid='65719' dateline='1337951336']

I will grant you that helping some random guy is unlikely but it does happen.

The problem is' date=' the current game mechanics stimulates that happening less and less, the more people get acquainted with what's worth and what's not in this game.

[hr']

Dinnj, your main mistake is thinking that currently the intentions of others are unknown.

[Dinnj 4]

Also' date=' the problem you described, is, actually, rather rare in Day Z and is overestimated. Most of time you may be pretty sure about something of the following: (a) no one is around or (b) if anyone around, they will be unlikely to find you, if you run away / hide right away; © they won't necessarily try to investigate, cause it's risk.

[b'] Over 50% of my kills come from others having shot someone, I get them whilst they're looting. I've killed a lot of people.

That is quite a distant possibility I would say and shouldn't be a problem for anyone having slight experience in Day Z. I'd say you were quite lucky that you managed to do that twice. Anyway, that's far from being a good disincentive to kill, really. Just do it quick, loot quick, run away.

In my group, someone who has fired upon us have never, ever, gotten away. If you shoot someone who appears to be on their own, but is actually in a group (This is very, very common,) you're going to get taken down if you're on your own.

---

Dinnj, your main mistake is thinking that currently the intentions of others are unknown.

This totally unsupported claim, even if true, is not any where close to being a real argument.

Just pointing out things you don't like about the mod is utterly pointless. That's where the line crosses from useful suggestions to whining.

[ClinClin 1]

Over 50% of my kills come from others having shot someone' date=' I get them whilst they're looting. I've killed a lot of people. [/b']

In my group, someone who has fired upon us have never, ever, gotten away. If you shoot someone who appears to be on their own, but is actually in a group (This is very, very common,) you're going to get taken down if you're on your own.

Oh well, so I mistake in your case. The point remains - it is just a matter of difficulty of killing you, not the "tension" of deciding whether you may be trusted or not.

This totally unsupported claim, even if true, is not any where close to being a real argument.

Oh, come on, you wrote this:

"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".

The problem is, irrespective of what that guy thinks of your intentions or what his intentions are, your personal best-winning intention is to kill him if you reasonably can. Once the idea becomes a matter of common knowledge (and it has already become) - it is wrong to base you in-game behaviour on the assumption that the "intentions are unknown".

So far no one gave me an example where decision to *not kill* is better than *kill*, when you can get away with it with ease.

Just pointing out things you don't like about the mod is utterly pointless. That's where the line crosses from useful suggestions to whining.

You are not alone, I am growing tired of this discussion too.

[Dinnj 4]

1

Your opinion: Do not kill needs an incentive.

Majority opinion: Do not kill does need need additional incentives.

2

Unresolved, not even contested, negative for your proposal: So immersion breaking that it is unable to be taken seriously.

3

Unresolved question: You are copying the bandit skin and executing it worse. If the bandit skin was removed, how is your idea better?

[ramulan45 0]

I' date=' like many of us, try to avoid PvP confrontations at all costs. I understand and appreciate why PvP exist. I just have much higher priorities.

I began playing this game purely because DayZ's all about 'survival'. In my understanding, that's all about staying alive and away from the undead hordes and doing whatever's possible to remain out of danger. This is a game where a player's entire progress can be completely erased by a single zombie or a single bullet; I therefore prefer not having to restart my character every couple of hours, particularly because of hunters killing purely 'for sport'. I prefer to survive.

Sure, I'm fine with the PvP mechanic - it adds a lot to the atmosphere with its stress-inducing paranoia levels. I'm never going to ask the developers to remove it.

But that doesn't mean I'll ever respect Hunters. As a Hunter, you're erasing a player's entire progress (hours, days, weeks) in one blow - for your own selfish wants and needs. In a post-apocalyptic situation which tests the very foundations of humanity, here are people who give no regard for others (or the time/effort they've put into their characters) and are prepared to take it all away all for the sake of 'scoring a kill'. Bored of shooting the braindead zombies, they simply feel an urge to fuck real players over.

If you want to kill people, I won't protest against your ability to do so - that's just a part of the game. But if you're prepared to kill humans and screw them over (especially when it's just 'for sport'), don't get annoyed when everyone outs you as a total 'I don't give a crap about anyone else but myself' player-killing douchebag and no-one wants to play with you either.

[/quote']

Very, very well said sir! I couldn't agree more. I have no idea why they are taking out the bandit skins. I NEED a way to spot PKers so I can keep myself SAFE!!

[Caius Argentis 2]

I agree there should be some more incentive to work together, forming groups for actual strategy and tactical pvp instead of sneaking up behind some guy and shooting him the back while he loots the guy he just did the same thing to.

The guy that thinks there is some great "tension" in not knowing is full of it. From what Ive seen you can practically guarantee than unless you are on VOIP with them, they WILL shoot first without asking questions...It gets real old after about 3 kills, anyone who thinks that this is entertaining pvp needs to slap themselves.

And as far as the engine goes...Tom Clancy thinks you have some wonky bullet physics and glitchiness...

[ClinClin 1]

1

Your opinion: Do not kill needs an incentive.

Majority opinion: Do not kill does need need additional incentives.

2

Unresolved' date=' not even contested, negative for your proposal: So immersion breaking that it is unable to be taken seriously.

[b']3

Unresolved question: You are copying the bandit skin and executing it worse. If the bandit skin was removed, how is your idea better?

1. It is your observation vs. my observation. Just to make sure I made myself clear: there is currently no incentives for "do not kill". I'd be happier if there were more than none.

2. No immersion breaking. Anyone who choses to play the same way they play now, will have no difference. No need to care for others' humanity or karma or whatever, if they chose to. Those who decide to care will get their difference. No harm done, everyone is happy. Exception, possibly, is deceit becoming more tricky, but still doable.

3. More efficient.

[Dinnj 4]

1. Not willing to accept that the vast majority of people like the mod as it is.

2. Not willing to accept that a number popping up to tell you someone's intentions when you aim at them is immersion breaking.

3. Not willing to provide support as to why a number popping up is more efficient than using a skin. More efficient version of a scrapped idea - not particularly useful.

I think we're done here.

[ClinClin 1]

1. Not willing to accept that the vast majority of people like the mod as it is.

2. Not willing to accept that a number popping up to tell you someone's intentions when you aim at them is immersion breaking.

3. Not willing to provide support as to why a number popping up is more efficient than using a skin. More efficient version of a scrapped idea - not particularly useful.

I think we're done here.

1, 2 - correct.

3. incorrect.

Done.

[Caius Argentis 2]

Quote: 1. Not willing to accept that the vast majority of people like the mod as it is.

It's cute that you think you speak for the "vast majority," you don't.

The vast majority probably isn't sharing their opinions at all, they are typically silent and will move onto the next game if they don't find something they like here. I do however agree that the negative feedback ideas like popups and bandit skins are not the way to go about it, you need positive incentive to make this game more than a lone wolf FFA with zombies.

[Jason91 (DayZ) 1]

I think that servers should be able to choose to turn PvP on or off because even though I love the PvP part of the game, other players don't and having a choice is always a good thing. Also less players would ragequit and stop playing the game, so the mod would be more popular.

[Dinnj 4]

Quote: 1. Not willing to accept that the vast majority of people like the mod as it is.

It's cute that you think you speak for the "vast majority' date='" you don't.

The vast majority probably isn't sharing their opinions at all, they are typically silent and will move onto the next game if they don't find something they like here. I do however agree that the negative feedback ideas like popups and bandit skins are not the way to go about it, you need positive incentive to make this game more than a lone wolf FFA with zombies.

[/quote']

The vast majority speak for the vast majority. Many people are playing and apparently enjoying themselves. The angry minority is always far more vocal than the happy players.

Are you attempting to suggest that the majority of people think that PvP should be changed and are currently unhappy with it?

"lone wolf FFA"

Implying working in a group of friends isn't more effective already.

---

I think that servers should be able to choose to turn PvP on or off because even though I love the PvP part of the game' date=' other players don't and having a choice is always a good thing. Also less players would ragequit and stop playing the game, so the mod would be more popular.

[/quote']

More popular....... yes, I actually agree. It would provide a vast safe-haven for people that don't actually like Day Z.

Problem - people play these ultra-carebear servers, farm up the best possible items , DMR, NVG, etc. and then play on the PvP servers. Does this not make it worse?

[callousdisregard 2]

A lot of the group action has been stalled since the tents don't seem to work right. Our camp was raided and we are just treading water now until we can set a new one. When the tent issue is settled you will see more group action because stockpililng and vehicle repair will become more common.

If it was possible to have a carebear server that was not connected to the real servers then I would be all for have a children's section of DayZ for those who simply can't deal with the dark brutality of the real game.

As far as the vast majority goes, it seems there is only one or two people advocating for a dumbed-down version and yet they feel that they speak for the "silent minority" that rage quits.

I say " FUCK the silent minority".

If you can't be bothered to stand up and be heard why should anyone give a shit what you think ?

105K + unique players (9751 bandits ) .....seems like it is working just fine the way it is since the percentage of bandits has dropped in relation to the overall population.

[Jikfive 34]

Do not allow servers to turn pvp off.

The first thing hunters would do then is join a non-pvp server. Go to cherno, get the best gear they could find, load up and hit the hardcore pvp servers and hunt people all day. When they run out of supplies/die in the hardcore servers they would just return to the care bear server to stock up and go slaying everyone again.

Not a good idea.

[Caius Argentis 2]

"Do not allow servers to turn pvp off.

The first thing hunters would do then is join a non-pvp server. Go to cherno, get the best gear they could find, load up and hit the hardcore pvp servers and hunt people all day. When they run out of supplies/die in the hardcore servers they would just return to the care bear server to stock up and go slaying everyone again.

Not a good idea."

Hmmm, seems like we could come up with a pretty simple fix for this. Make the characters incompatible or something? And yes, I know the character server is massively overloaded atm, so this is reaching...but we are in an alpha. In the end, there is gonna be a lot of players who want to escape the pvp, if only for a game or two, for the incredibly emergent cooperative gameplay that this mod is capable of as well. Servers should be able to set up however they want, that is the beauty of the highly flexible Arma engine. In the end the players will go where they want. If that means you run out of noobs to shoot at, deal with it.