The PvP Discussion Thread

[Pacificwing 0]

I'm not sure the problem is with the zombies. Right now, they aren't much of a threat, but I'm concerned that the dynamic of the game is about to take a major change, without any changes to the mechanics of the game itself.

Currently, most players are new, and just discovering the world. But you can already see the formation of "groups" or "cliques", as gangs and clans are starting to form. This will only become more common as people become more familiar with the game.

After that, you will have turf wars and gang territories. This is simply human nature, and it is already starting to show in the game.

My concern is that the game is going to become increasingly hostile towards the single player looking for the "lone wolf" experience. This is the very experience that made this mod popular in the first place, and it is about to disappear.

Right now, as a single player, your biggest likely threat is running into another single player, and him seeing and shooting you first. Occasionally you might run into an organized group of 2-3 survivors, but that is usually it, and they aren't a problem when you reach the outskirts.

Imagine what the game will be like when you can't go to the airfield or any of the major towns because they are clan territory, and you aren't in the right clan. Imagine when your "lone-wolf" experience turns into you constantly being hunted by a pack of 5-10 more.

This is the turn that the game is likely to take in the near future, as people get more familiar with the game and start to get organized. Some might think this is a good thing, but it is a major departure from what is making this game popular, and that benefits nobody in the long run.

I just hope that as the game becomes more mainstream, you don't lose that "alone in the world" atmosphere that made it so popular in the first place.

[catgut 3]

The main obstacle to large-group behavior that I see is food scarcity. You'd be hard-pressed to keep ten to fifteen people alive in an airfield unless most of them are constantly out foraging. Even three or four can be difficult to keep supplied and fed while on the move.

[Lordtac 1]

The main obstacle to large-group behavior that I see is food scarcity. You'd be hard-pressed to keep ten to fifteen people alive in an airfield unless most of them are constantly out foraging. Even three or four can be difficult to keep supplied and fed while on the move.

your kidding right? one cow, one goat, or one bore is enough to feed 5 people, besides that you can just have each person manage their own food, any one "Loner" should have at least 2 cans of food in their pack, one for the login hunger, and one for normal game-time hunger acquired while scavenging or exploring.

[Djestr 5]

Want zombies to feel like a threat? Add in players turning to zombies on death or after having been infected by on over time, if the are not treated promptly.

[maxviklund@gmail.com 0]

I shoot on sight. Always.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Last night, I spawned at the "Airfield". After using up most (see: all) of my ammo dealing with the 'heavy' zeds, I came out of the area with a nice AKM, complete with a couple of clips of ammo. Just as I was exiting the maze of razor wire, all of the zeds respawned. (I'm going to go out of my way and say that this is likely 'as intended', and is not supposed to be a cakewalk for the lone wolf character.)

Upon exiting, I shot most of them, but managed to empty my AKM (not good) while having only three zeds survive to chase me around. I ran north until I found some structures I recognized, and proceeded to get inside a building, so that I would be able to switch to my Mak and dispatch the final three. Things did not go as planned. As it turns out, I had only THREE rounds left. The first two zeds went down with headshots! (YAY!) The last one - coincidentally, a crawler - took my last bullet in his shoulder. (I TOLD YOU I suck at aiming.)

Anyhow, for whatever, reason, he started crawling away (?) outside. I bandaged up, and heard shots from outside. Uh oh. That's not good. Someone is outside - and I am all out of bullets.

In voice, I heard, "Friendly?" and I responded in kind via chat. I walked outside, and he immediately aimed at me - I thought FOR SURE he was going to shoot, but I told him that he had likely saved me - and he could have my AKM in trade. I laid it on the ground, and he asked me to take three Mak mags from his pack, which I did.

I thanked him again, and we set off in separate directions. (MacQyver was his name. I remember that.)

So - when everybody shouts "doom and gloom" all over the place, just remember, it's not all a deathmatch out there.

[dystopeon 46]

It would be incredibly funny if all players have been monitored since 1.5.8 and based on their humanity levels atm, a permanent bandit skin change occurs. That would be pretty damn tearful for a lot of players (=fuel for Rocket). Perma skin change would also give incentive for the survivor to play well, like a human being. Maybe then some people would buy a second copy (fresh humanity) and actually ROLEPLAY. I already have my friendly mule character (the 1st one) & my circlejerk-voip-douche-pk'er character. Friendly mule hates giving all his sweet loot to the former :p

---

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

[/quote']

seriously, do you play this game? stop talking absolute nonsense.

[The Killing Joke 43]

Perma skin change would also give incentive for the survivor to play well' date=' like a human being. Maybe then some people would buy a second copy (fresh humanity) and actually ROLEPLAY.[/quote']

I role play perfectly well as a human, who just happens to like to survive, but usually does not.

seriously' date=' do you play this game? stop talking absolute nonsense.[/quote']

Did you read my story? You know, the one right above your post? Stop being so naive.

[dystopeon 46]

Having only "bandits" is not ok' date=' 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. [/quote']

i remember when i used to spot a fellow survivor unseen, call them out, see their behaviour & make a decision. what a rush! none of that anymore, just gank on site. ClinClin, I don't think your detractor's understand you, because they didn't really play extensively before 1.5.8 or play Arma much in general...

why didn't they just make bandit skins permanent? kill >15 survivors = permanent bandit. Want to be a survivor again? buy another copy of ARMA and play like a human, there's no real excuse for pk'ing >15 survivors (even in self defence, as you can avoid). The whole 'management' around humanity (i.e. lack of permanence) made it complicated. The dyad of survivor/bandit also served as a type of 'auto-narration' and increased immersion 20 fold. I don't even plug the mic in anymore :(

[The Killing Joke 43]

i remember when i used to spot a fellow survivor unseen' date=' call them out, see their behaviour & make a decision. what a rush! none of that anymore, just gank on site.[/quote']

This is because you choose to do so. I know I posted my story before. Did you read it? I didn't shoot the other guy, I gave him my friggin' AK "just because".

why didn't they just make bandit skins permanent? kill >15 survivors = permanent bandit. Want to be a survivor again? buy another copy of ARMA and play like a human' date=' there's no real excuse for pk'ing >15 survivors (even in self defence, as you can avoid). The whole 'management' around humanity (i.e. lack of permanence) made it complicated. The dyad of survivor/bandit also served as a type of 'auto-narration' and increased immersion 20 fold. I don't even plug the mic in anymore :([/quote']

Oh, I can answer this one too. Because after a week of people shooting back, everybody would look exactly the same!

[catgut 3]

your kidding right? one cow' date=' one goat, or one bore is enough to feed 5 people, besides that you can just have each person manage their own food, any one "Loner" should have at least 2 cans of food in their pack, one for the login hunger, and one for normal game-time hunger acquired while scavenging or exploring.[/quote']

You ask if I'm kidding, then you reinforce my point.

If everyone has to be scavenging to 'manage their own food' as you put it, they're not in a position to be dominating one corner of the map and shooting anyone who comes near. Right now, food isn't especially scarce for one or two people traveling together, but if one person has to be finding food and water both for himself and for two guys back at camp, it's not really feasible as a long-term plan.

---

So - when everybody shouts "doom and gloom" all over the place' date=' just remember, it's not all a deathmatch out there.[/quote']

Nobody said everyone always shoots each other all the time. But for every 'friendly survivor helps me instead of shooting' anecdote I'm sure I can find five 'I helped a guy and he shot me' anecdotes in return. You couldn't kill him even if you wanted to, and he didn't kill you because he chose not to (pretty rare). When two armed players meet the result is rarely so amicable.

Nothing in the game is forcing players to kill each other. The game mechanics, however, are strongly encouraging it, and then players are happy to go along.

[kradluk 6]

Make the reward greater for those willing to group. Food, water, guns, ammo, and supplies are all plentiful. Right now, running around as a group, we find ourselves looking for one thing, and one thing only, vehicles. We all carry around specific oddities in the event we come across a vehicle and need unexpected parts to fix it. What if when you approach a town as a group, you are presented with a mini task/quest where you have to hit specific objectives in order to get access to a vehicle or its parts. Something like this could require a specific amount of people and encourage people to even globally beg the question "anyone want to try and get the heli up an running in cherno?".

Sure, this would make packs of organized players that much more dangerous, but it would also make groups of random players stronger than the random greifer. I also do not believe this would be a detriment to the survival aspect of the game, as if this were real, you would likely need more than yourself to break into a military base and harbor the required materials to get something up and running.

Another idea would be to have randomized skill sets assigned to players at spawn. Make it so that everyone cannot simply use/carry a hatchet, knife, matches, compass, map, etc. You would not have every skill required for survival in real life, why would this be any different. This could force individuals to group up, or at least explore what skills another player may have. This would also make the group much stronger than the individual, as everyone would be able to benefit from a collective skill set. There could also be an element where you could learn skills from other players. This would give an objective to staying alive moreso than just the random uber equipment you find over time or the bragging rights of "I haven't been killed in 3 weeks". This would also allow those that really want to play the lone wolf style an opportunity to do so, but forcing a bit of teamwork first.

Both of these would not necessarily hurt those that want to greif, but it would make life just a bit harder for those unwilling to at least humor the idea of working with others. All the while benefit those willing to not shoot on site.

[phienyx 14]

Kradluk, I think this idea would be good if this were your average game. However for what it is meant to be, it is very heavy handed mechanically speaking. What happens if you cannot find a group because there are not enough people around? I think the idea is NOT to make it completely impossible at all to survive without grouping, but to increase the chances of survival and a little "safer" if people group. The idea is to simulate how a similar situation would play out in real life. You could survive on your own if you really know what your doing, but doing so would be very dangerous and soon or later there would be something(s) that you would another person or other people to accomplish.

The question is, what mechanic (that would not be too heavy handed) could be introduced into the "game" to represent the need for other survivors (outside of transfusions) that would be necessary to continued survival? I do not have an idea for this currently, but I'm am thinking.

[musicrab 5]

...The question is' date=' what mechanic (that would not be too heavy handed) could be introduced into the "game" to represent the need for other survivors (outside of transfusions) that would be necessary to continued survival?...[/quote']

Hardcore gamer answer:- none - use your skill

Non-hardcore gamer answer:- indication to a player that another player has come within a certain distance, thus offerring the following possible outcomes :- fight, run away, or team-up.

[qfan 1]

i remember when i used to spot a fellow survivor unseen' date=' call them out, see their behaviour & make a decision. what a rush! none of that anymore, just gank on site.

[/quote']

Exactly. In fact, contrary to what some people say, I found once you realise this fact and change game style appropriately, there is actually less tension in the game. Since you know 90% of the time when meeting strangers you will be shot, and that the most appropriate choice is to shoot first, there is no more of this questioning. i.e. no more tension.

[InsXicht 2]

dayz is just a deathmatch game with NPCs, 95% of all player would kill you just for nothing. try to go to the northern big airfield, its just annoying you run 30-40 min and get killt by a player.

we need no friendly fire server, thets it.

[phienyx 14]

dayz is just a deathmatch game with NPCs' date=' 95% of all player would kill you just for nothing. try to go to the northern big airfield, its just annoying you run 30-40 min and get killt by a player.

we need no friendly fire server, thets it.

[/quote']

I do not like the idea of having to shoot first and ask questions later, but that is how other players are dictating that I play if I want to "survive". This sucks for the simple fact that I'd rather team up and play with other players together than just run around shooting everyone I see just so they won't shoot me first. Because I know how frustrating it can be, I'd rather not put an end to someone's survival efforts simply so they don't shoot me first. I hate missing out on possible teammates for this reason.

Its funny how certain players don't want to be "forced" to play a certain way, but they have no problem "forcing" other people to play the way they enjoy.

....and for those who don't already know my stance on PvP in DayZ: No, I do NOT want PvP removed. I'd just like to see it modified to encourage other types of game play as well without keeping hunter/killers from doing what they do.

[nekodani 1]

Its funny how certain players don't want to be "forced" to play a certain way, but they have no problem "forcing" other people to play the way they enjoy.

Epic...

I hate that noobs shoot on sight, in unrealistic.

In a zombie apocalypse the 80% of survivors dont go shooting all they see. Survivors cooperate for survive one day more.

Is true, the bad guys exist, but NOT THE 99%. Is Deathmatch Z.

Im sure, rocket change the pvp abuse soon. This is one terrible thing need fix it.

You cant enjoy your play, because noobs or retards are shooting on sight. If you want shoot, go and play CoD!

You can be a bandit, but please, BANDIT. Hunt if you has no choice.

[phienyx 14]

In the case that you misunderstand, I don't like the prevalence of shoot on sight "reality" that is currently DayZ and more of the reality that is more likely if a scenario of this type were to occur.

As a side note: if you are a fan of zombie games and real life weapons you may appreciate the magazine Zombie Nation. The scariest part is that I think they might actually be taking themselves seriously.

[psycho84 0]

The question is' date=' what mechanic (that would not be too heavy handed) could be introduced into the "game" to represent the need for other survivors (outside of transfusions) that would be necessary to continued survival? I do not have an idea for this currently, but I'm am thinking.

[/quote']

The two ideas/mechanics a friend and I have come up with are quite simple but we think would help add more facets to PvP.

1) A reduction in the spawn rates for food, drink, ammo, guns etc. so that even experienced survivors/bandits need to be mindfull of supply.

2) When a player is shot there is a chance some of their gear gets hit and damaged. (suggested by Rocket first)

The combo increases demand for life sustaining/desirable supplies and then gives a consequence to trying to take them by shooting murder. The byproduct is it gives incentives to rob, pickpocket, trade or simply work together instead of just shooting eachother on sight.

Suggestion forum links to them:

1)http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9824

2)http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=11265

[Tossing 0]

Implementing game mechanics that encourage players to play together sounds good on paper, but isn't a good idea.

If game mechanics were implemented to "encourage" players to work together nothing will change.

Players that kos, will still do so.

Players that try to be friendly to people will still do it.

Why? Because no game mechanic will make strangers trust each other.

It will mainly benefit the groups of players that have already been playing games together before playing dayz. These groups of players are already reaping the benefits of grouping together.

When working with a group:

it is easy to get geared up.

it is easier to control vehicles.

it is easy to control towns to farm them.

it is easier to survive.

when you die, chances are you'll get your stuff back.

it is a lot more fun to play.

The benefits go on and on.

The people that work together are already owning servers. Why give them more advantages?

[zantiago 119]

Implementing game mechanics that encourage players to play together sounds good on paper' date=' but isn't a good idea.[/b']

The people that work together are already owning servers. Why give them more advantages?

To true to describe!

We are a cautious group of 4, and we can use the better of 15mins just scouting out a city before even considering entering it..

And we have 2snipers, binos, and 2 assault players..

Me beeing one of the snipers..

If we see someone trying to take a supermarket we are after, they will promptly be asked to leave, and a timeframe where they got time to get out of town and away.

If they answer ok, then my scope will not be in his chest, or head, if he doesn't answer, we would have earned mroe supplies..

We aren't out to kill people, but we are out to survive, and we always run in and out of the city, before checking the loot..

these are our servers:

US 3, Chicago 30, US 4, and Norwegian 1-2

Due to security i will not tell you what part of the map we are currently controlling, unless you walk into it, and want to find out for yourself!

-z

[phienyx 14]

I had my own idea that I laid out as well in this thread, but I think it was lost when the forums had to be restored from an old back up.

My idea was to introduce 2-4 factions that are visually distinguishable in some way. Whenever you spawn a new character, you are able to chose which faction you wish to spawn as.

Killing anyone of another faction would carry NO penalty at all. So players who wish to play as player hunters could still hunt members of other faction without penalty. If a player were to kill a member of their own faction, it would be counted against them up to them killing a member of their own faction for a 3rd time (this would allow for accidental or unintentional killings). After the third time, they would be automatically placed in a "bandit" faction at which point they would be able to be killed without penalty to any and all factions including other bandits.

This mechanic would allow players a better idea of who they might be able to trust to team with and most likely not get killed purposely, simply for the sake of being killed. Yet, they would still have to be careful not to be killed by other factions or bandits.

I don't think this mechanic is two heavy handed in that it still allows for player killers to player kill (even within factions if they so insist) yet allows some basis and reason not to simply kill on sight just because its another human player. You have a better chance of a player of your own faction not killing you and therefore representing a more "realistic" idea of how people would actually behave in an apocalyptic world. Meaning that they might not fully trust you, but they won't just kill you on sight because you happen to cross their path. In turn, that person you may have killed on sight previously before giving them a chance to see if they are willing to work with you. If they are of your own faction there is the choice to let them go about their business, offer to team up or kill them if you want to play as a bandit.

This may not be a perfect idea and may need some refinement, but I think it would satisfy those on all sides of the PvP argument....accept of course those who don't wish to play the game in the spirit of what its meant to be and just want free reign to do as they wish simply to piss people off.

[InsXicht 2]

awesome story! ...i'am again at the big airfield in north sneak around, 20 zombies around me. I crawling out from a hangar, then from out of nothing 4-5 shots, i'm dead and the idiot pulls ALL the zombies! ...i dont know if he servived, but the chances are TOO GOOD to kill all the zombies!!!

and i spamm "friendly" or so in the direct channel, so why are people risk there life to kill somebody?!?!?!:@:huh:

[phienyx 14]

That very thing happened to me yesterday, but I think the person that killed me disconnected before the swarm of zombies he attracted killed him. He wasn't shooting in self defense because I did not threaten or shoot at him first, nor was he shooting for survival because I dare say that he brought the entire airfield full of zombies down on his position. HE would have been better off not shooting and we both would have survived.

The thing is that people are NOT playing the game in the spirit of the game (survival). They are killing just to piss off other players and THAT is what's known as griefing which is not an intended part of any game that I know.