"Sorry you may have been a friend, you just weren't worth the risk"

[martin.pleister@gmail.com 10]

That's an extremely negative view on mankind, and I strongly disagree. Some people are dicks in real life, but far from everyone. Most are dicks in DayZ, but it's a game with little to no consequences for being a dick.

I'm not saying that being egoistic is negative per se, but our drive to survive, leads us to follow the path that seems most profitable (or least unprofitable). The fact that we all have that drive, doesn't make us all dicks, as helping someone else out and sacrificing just a little bit of what you have at that time may lead to being profitable to you in the future (investing) is also an effect of the same drive to survive.

When people hear the word "egoistic" they immediately associate it with negative behaviour, when one of the main definitions of egoism is: "Concern for one's own interests and welfare".

Like I said, even when you are in a group of friends, you'll still think about how everything you do will affect your own interests and welfare, whether you do it consciously or not. Concern for your own interests and welfare isn't malicious; it's the main reason species manage to survive.

No

It would only lead to solo players leaving the game and organized groups continuing like they did before

You can't force teamwork, either people co-operate or they don't, game mechanics won't change that

I agree with this. People who don't like playing together aren't going to magically like playing together just because someone else thinks you should play it like that and should like that.

The whole idea of "forcing" someone to play more in groups is, in fact, completely in breach of the principle of a "Sandbox" game. In a sandbox, you can make whatever choices you want to make, within the parameters set out by the creator of the sandbox. The creator of the sandbox should in no way force behaviour upon the users of it, because it will break immersion and work completely counterproductive.

The main reason why people are shooting others on sight is because another human being can't be predicted if you don't know his way of thinking and his current psychological and emotional state. If you encounter an infected, you already know exactly what you can expect if you aggro him, he spotted you, etc. It's the unpredictability of the human mind that makes us scared of the other survivors, because frankly, they could shoot you on sight if they wanted to as well. This drives people more and more to a point where you indeed trust no one else, as you are isolating yourself from anyone that might have been friendly, simply because you couldn't tell if he would be friendly or not.

That said, I'm also against a way to mark down that someone is friendly through the hud or something like that: the hud should provide minimal information (I -hate- servers with nametags for this reason). If there would be an option for people to change their appearance somewhat, marking that they're friendly, that would change.

Let's give an example: give people who are looking for fellow friendlies the option to wear a blue band around their left upper arm (just an example). This would mean that once you've spotted someone, you can check to see if he's got a blue band equipped, denoting to you that he's friendly.

This mechanism, however, is easily exploitable (look at the reason why espionage is such a favourable tactic): someone could start wearing a blue band around their arm, when in reality they aren't looking for friendlies at all, but just looking for easy kills / easy loot. Now you've got a problem: how do you decide who can wear blue bands and what would be the conditions for it?

Now, as you might notice, we're talking about "rules" and "conditions" again, meaning putting individual restrictions and, as I said earlier, something like that works against the principles of a sandbox game.

Long story short:

1) Egoism isn't strictly negative: "concern for one's own interests and welfare"

2) Forcing survivors to group up will never work in a sandbox game, as it goes against the basic principles of a sandbox game

3) There is no possible way to mark friendlies in a way that's not exploitable and following the basic principles of a sandbox game.

EDIT:

One of my mates once wrote a guest post about this on Kodabar's blog, go read it and see why he (and most other people) kill other survivors without asking questions first:

http://kodabar.blogs...ay-z-story.html

Edited July 31, 2012 by Fengshen

[John Grimmer 11]

This would be more incentive for banditry. Zombies are too hard to kill, so kill players instead.

[Derpy_Hooves (DayZ) 4521]

But if everyone is in a group, it either doesn't matter or becomes a number game. Or everone is pals with everyone. Desirable in real life, maybe, but not in a apocalyptic mod. If I want to play boring shite, i can do the FB farmyard bloerb.

Groups are an advantage if most play lone wolf style.

In counter of this it then becomes more of a 4 way tussle, as groups such as mine grow bigger it attracts other groups into trying to wipe us out, then dodging bandit threats whilst helping survivors. We have noticed this keeps the suspence of tracking group movments up and avoiding the inevitable sniper game...

Last night is a prime example that there are players willing to help others out, 3 of us had a bus and got jumped in Solinichy, so i respawned just down the road, 1st instinct is to go get my stuff back... so heading up the coast i end up with a Zombie conga, next thing shots ring out from all sides, i hit the comms shouting "friendly, unarmed friendly" to get a rather pleasant Russian speaking back " yes it's ok... we got the z's, do you need any medical help or anything" i then told them the grief i had encountered up the road, saying this they respond saying they were heading that way toward the gun fire, so i tagged along with an enfield one of the group handed me, we got to the industrial region and attacked the group still there.

They even allowed me to grab all my kit first, but not without me offering anything they needed as a way of thanks. then we parted ways, only for me to find out they were gunned down in Berezhino by a bandit crew only 15 minutes later... so i returned the favour by scouting round elektro till one of them answered my hails, soon i had their whole crew under my watch as they sorted themselves out and re-grouped. To say the least its the most satisfying thing that has happened to me in this game.. Players who take that split second to trust a complete stranger and help when they need it are rare, im just so glad i met them when i did,

To whoever you guys were on UK 5 last night, i salute you!!

[martin.pleister@gmail.com 10]

In counter of this it then becomes more of a 4 way tussle, as groups such as mine grow bigger it attracts other groups into trying to wipe us out, then dodging bandit threats whilst helping survivors. We have noticed this keeps the suspence of tracking group movments up and avoiding the inevitable sniper game...

Last night is a prime example that there are players willing to help others out, 3 of us had a bus and got jumped in Solinichy, so i respawned just down the road, 1st instinct is to go get my stuff back... so heading up the coast i end up with a Zombie conga, next thing shots ring out from all sides, i hit the comms shouting "friendly, unarmed friendly" to get a rather pleasant Russian speaking back " yes it's ok... we got the z's, do you need any medical help or anything" i then told them the grief i had encountered up the road, saying this they respond saying they were heading that way toward the gun fire, so i tagged along with an enfield one of the group handed me, we got to the industrial region and attacked the group still there.

They even allowed me to grab all my kit first, but not without me offering anything they needed as a way of thanks. then we parted ways, only for me to find out they were gunned down in Berezhino by a bandit crew only 15 minutes later... so i returned the favour by scouting round elektro till one of them answered my hails, soon i had their whole crew under my watch as they sorted themselves out and re-grouped. To say the least its the most satisfying thing that has happened to me in this game.. Players who take that split second to trust a complete stranger and help when they need it are rare, im just so glad i met them when i did,

To whoever you guys were on UK 5 last night, i salute you!!

Wonderful to see there's still people around who actually are friendly. :) Last time I was friendly to someone, he shot me in the back of my head ar the first chance he got. :(

[Derpy_Hooves (DayZ) 4521]

Wonderful to see there's still people around who actually are friendly. :) Last time I was friendly to someone, he shot me in the back of my head ar the first chance he got. :(

Indeed, i've had that happen on a couple of occasions, when im with my team we are far more wary of others, single players we urge to avoid us, incase they have been tracked by bandits, but generally we take no chances with larger groups, but when im on my own as of last night, i will hail any other person i see. im as vunerable as anyone else. and until i get somewhere i need to be or with my team i will stick to whatever party is "friendly" and if its one other person i will invite them to join us on whatever objective we are on, sharing the spoils with those who help you is common manners :)

[gizm0 96]

Please play FB farmthingy ... It's safe and nice and you just get fleeced for dosh ..

So basically if I don't want to kill other players I shouldn't play Dayz and thus limit the playstyles allowed in game?

[Naykon (DayZ) 25]

If zombies were harder I would kill more people and steal their stuff to avoid going to supermarkets

[Derpy_Hooves (DayZ) 4521]

If zombies were harder I would kill more people and steal their stuff to avoid going to supermarkets

This is true, though personally i prefer sneaking through towns with some mates and get shit that way... buuuut if anyone gets in the way it will get messy, again i see it down to the situation wether a player stays alive or dies... though i would rather let them live and hopefully they may re-pay the favour later on

[martin.pleister@gmail.com 10]

So basically if I don't want to kill other players I shouldn't play Dayz and thus limit the playstyles allowed in game?

Not killing a player upon encounter doesn't automatically imply you're going to be friendly with someone. What I usually do is completely avoiding the possibility of contact: I play on low-pop servers and generally try to spot other survivors before they spot me and try to find a way to avoid the possibility of them seeing me. When I'm playing alone, I'm just as vulnerable as they are, like Derpy_Hooves said as well.

Just remember that there's a lot of play styles that are completely allowed (any play style that doesn't involve hacking/exploiting is allowed) that don't involve shooting on sight or becoming friendly with every other survivor you encounter.

If zombies were harder I would kill more people and steal their stuff to avoid going to supermarkets

This is true, though personally i prefer sneaking through towns with some mates and get shit that way... buuuut if anyone gets in the way it will get messy, again i see it down to the situation wether a player stays alive or dies... though i would rather let them live and hopefully they may re-pay the favour later on

This would probably be true for me as well, moreover so when I'm playing solo. When I'm in a team, I know I'm covered when going to a supermarket. If the infected would get a lot harder, a group still offers that security. I play solo a lot as well though and in that case, I'd have to resort to killing other players in order to get my needed supplies if it gets harder to go into towns. The only (relatively) save targets are unarmed people. I will never harm someone who's unarmed, unless they're forming a serious threat (someone running at me with a bunch of zombies on his tail, be it armed or unarmed, is considered a serious threat, if zombies get harder than they are now).

[Powell (DayZ) 734]

It's called direct chat. Speak the fuck up and I won't shoot you, that's about it.

[Keylime314 19]

Also, how about making them a bit more scary? Right now they're basically NPCs that shuffle around and moan. Why don't we give them glowing yellow eyes or something, and make them laugh maniacally or screech randomly? I mean, when I saw 28 Weeks Later, that shit scared me. What makes those "rage-infected" so much more chilling than the DayZ zeds?

http://dayzmod.com/f...yz/#entry492754

[BobertJoe 4]

I think I know the solution for this entire thread.

All Day Z players must attend a mandatory trust camp. Trust falls, minefield games, all of this shit.

We will be so trusting of eachother after that, nobody will ever kill another player.

[BossFi 90]

If you make it so hard to get loot by yourself then the easiest option is to kill other players for the loot. Even group with them then kill them afterwards.So it doesnt change anything, apart from making loot more valuable hence players more of a target.

Trust stops players grouping, not how hard the game is!

[puppetworx 474]

Do not read if you cannot handle critique.

The best way to encourage team-play is to require it. People who get zero human contact go mad, interaction with others is a human need - so make this a part of the game. If you fail to interact with others every few days then make it so that make it so that your character mumbles to them-self so they are louder, make them hallucinate other players and zombies and hear non-existent sounds around them, make the characters hair and clothes become disheveled and the characters become twitchy.

The fundamental lacking this game faces is character development (and story development as an extension). What makes every film and book you love so much so compelling is that the characters change and so does the plot. In DayZ, as is, everybody looks the same, there is no character differentiation beyond weaponry, and that's not real. The lack of customization means that friends who play together often find themselves in a gun fight having to guess as to whether or not the player they are pointing their gun at is a friend or foe, that's beyond unrealistic at close ranges. Character development is at the root of many people's dissatisfaction with the game at this stage, once they get weapons, plentiful food and a vehicle they have no avenues for further development for that character. The plot doesn't change either, the game is still about survival and once you've mastered that then what? Usually you go shoot someone for sport. Competitive combat is at least some form of entertainment.

So I say bring back customization of clothing and introduce a non-optional 'crazy' mask. Make it so that increasing customization is dependent on the skills you have acquired and not just luck. If you have lots of murders you alone can find bandit clothes and choose to wear them. If you are a medic you alone can find medic clothes and choose to wear them. The idea being to make players become increasingly attached to their characters and their progression.

We've already had the basic humans needs food, water and shelter/temperature included in the game, it's time to include companionship.

(pic related: it's maslow's hierarchy of needs)

[zipper 69]

No, working together should be rewarded.

You can't penalize one type of gameplay to force people into another type of gameplay.

What gameplay is currently being penalized?

[Askar 177]

I think I know the solution for this entire thread.

All Day Z players must attend a mandatory trust camp. Trust falls, minefield games, all of this shit.

We will be so trusting of eachother after that, nobody will ever kill another player.

If only. There'd still be murders of course, but I think that'd go a long way.

If you know Bill Survivor as a guy you can trust or has been trustworthy in the past, are you going to be as afraid of him shooting you as you were before? I think you'd be more likely to team up with him and find other trustworthy people. A group like that would naturally gear up as they worked together to loot high value places and fend off those who attacked them. There is no permanent solution nor should there be one. But your idea (though I'm sure it was sarcasm) would actually go much further than you give it credit for in reducing the total sum of murders.

[martin.pleister@gmail.com 10]

Do not read if you cannot handle critique.

The best way to encourage team-play is to require it. People who get zero human contact go mad, interaction with others is a human need - so make this a part of the game. If you fail to interact with others every few days then make it so that make it so that your character mumbles to them-self so they are louder, make them hallucinate other players and zombies and hear non-existent sounds around them, make the characters hair and clothes become disheveled and the characters become twitchy.

The fundamental lacking this game faces is character development (and story development as an extension). What makes every film and book you love so much so compelling is that the characters change and so does the plot. In DayZ, as is, everybody looks the same, there is no character differentiation beyond weaponry, and that's not real. The lack of customization means that friends who play together often find themselves in a gun fight having to guess as to whether or not the player they are pointing their gun at is a friend or foe, that's beyond unrealistic at close ranges. Character development is at the root of many people's dissatisfaction with the game at this stage, once they get weapons, plentiful food and a vehicle they have no avenues for further development for that character. The plot doesn't change either, the game is still about survival and once you've mastered that then what? Usually you go shoot someone for sport. Competitive combat is at least some form of entertainment.

So I say bring back customization of clothing and introduce a non-optional 'crazy' mask. Make it so that increasing customization is dependent on the skills you have acquired and not just luck. If you have lots of murders you alone can find bandit clothes and choose to wear them. If you are a medic you alone can find medic clothes and choose to wear them. The idea being to make players become increasingly attached to their characters and their progression.

We've already had the basic humans needs food, water and shelter/temperature included in the game, it's time to include companionship.

(pic related: it's maslow's hierarchy of needs)

What's next? The need for sexuality? Getting babies with a female survivor because of the physical need for sex and the biological thrive for survival of the species? Having to go to a toilet every once in a while (that one might be achievable btw)? The need for sleep for a character (meaning you'll have to be online for about 6 to 8 hours a day just so your character can get enough sleep)?

Saying we should move up one level in the hierarchy of needs when the current level isn't completed doesn't make sense, as it's like a building: without a proper foundation, there's no hierarchy.

This said, the need to have social contact isn't very strong. People can go around for weeks without social contact before it actually starts to bother them a bit. Getting delusional from a lack of social contact is even far off the mark and shouldn't be a problem for people for the first few -months-, unless they were already delusional to begin with. Now, let's start looking at the time survivors live (the average is 49 minutes now), someone is considered to be living quite a long time if they have survived for over 14 days. 2 weeks... Heck, I've been sick for 4 weeks once without permission of physical social contact, since I was highly contagious during that time and it didn't drive me crazy, though it started bothering me for a bit after the 3rd week. 4 weeks = 28 days = 672 hours = 40,320 minutes without social contact; approximately 823 times the average lifetime expectancy in DayZ.

I do, however, like your idea of clothing customization, though, coming back to the point I made earlier, that would break one of the most basic rules for sandboxes: what is available to one player, should be available to all other players as well.

About character development, since there -is no plot- (in a sandbox game, you create your own plot), the idea of character development would push players into a certain direction, which is something you shouldn't do in a world that holds everybody's own stories.

If you look at Askar, for example, he chose to be a medic himself, there has never been anything pushing him in that direction, nor is it a form of character development that has been laid out by the developers; it's a character he developed himself, without the need for intervention of developers and/or game mechanics. Another player might have chosen to become a lone wolf killing everything he sees moving. Fair call, it's his own choice and we should respect that, rather than go whine about it when you get killed by someone who follows that kind of character development.

[hunterkilla 67]

There is that, but why play a multi-player game then?

Well he doesnt have to team up with people in a multiplayer game, if it was a single player game we would all be bored by now...... The fact is the sandbox allows us to play how we want, he and I like to lone wolf it and I have tried teaming up but not recently. Too risky at the moment and I think if you make Zeds hard to the point you would have to team up to go into town you will penalise lone wolfs who can't risk it and reward clans and then you will get more banditry as people will sit and watch, wait for someone to go get loot then snipe them from a safe distance.

[puppetworx 474]

People can go around for weeks without social contact before it actually starts to bother them a bit.

That's true but people don't need to eat and drink every hour either. Finding food and drink adds challenge to the game - something the game is lacking. Shitting and sleeping makes no sense and I would never suggest they be added to gameplay. Shitting can be done anywhere, anytime so there is no challenge and therefore no value in adding it to the game and sleeping is a non-activity, why would you put non-play into a game? Necessitating sex makes little sense in game also with all those goats wandering around.

About character development, since there -is no plot- (in a sandbox game, you create your own plot), the idea of character development would push players into a certain direction, which is something you shouldn't do in a world that holds everybody's own stories.

There is a basic plot: you are a survivor of a zombie breakout, the country is in anarchy. From there on out there is no plot development. I'm not saying there should be a rails-like plot to follow either, only that performing certain already in game actions should give the opportunity of customization. That is a risk-reward system but it's not rails. I agree with you that non-restricted chance based customization (clothes loot) is what's more important however. The best way to help people develop their own stories and become attached to their character is to allow them to define themselves with customization.

[martin.pleister@gmail.com 10]

That's true but people don't need to eat and drink every hour either. Finding food and drink adds challenge to the game - something the game is lacking. Shitting and sleeping makes no sense and I would never suggest they be added to gameplay. Shitting can be done anywhere, anytime so there is no challenge and therefore no value in adding it to the game and sleeping is a non-activity, why would you put non-play into a game? Necessitating sex makes little sense in game also with all those goats wandering around.

Then why put social contact in it? This is a survival mod, made for a first person shooter / army simulator. You can tell me whatever you want about that, but necessitating social contact in an army simulator sounds to me like you're trying to implement 1-UP's in a real time strategy game. Social contact is a main element for traditional RPG's and (to a lesser extent) traditional adventure games, not for first person shooters.

There is a basic plot: you are a survivor of a zombie breakout, the country is in anarchy. From there on out there is no plot development. I'm not saying there should be a rails-like plot to follow either, only that performing certain already in game actions should give the opportunity of customization. That is a risk-reward system but it's not rails. I agree with you that non-restricted chance based customization (clothes loot) is what's more important however. The best way to help people develop their own stories and become attached to their character is to allow them to define themselves with customization.

Please note that the non-restricted part is really important here: you shouldn't limit a player to what gear he can wear based on his playing style. Someone playing as a bandit should be able to equip a medic's outfit just the same.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Fengshen

[BobertJoe 4]

Please note that the non-restricted part is really important here: you shouldn't limit a player to what gear he can wear based on his playing style. Someone playing as a bandit should be able to equip a medic's outfit just the same.

This last line is pretty important. It is the concept of "You cant trust anybody." that this game uses pretty heavily. Even if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, doesnt mean it cant kill you.

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

I like like playing solo,

QFT. I prefer to play solo, forcing me to group in a sandbox makes no sense.

If you're really good at solo, then play solo. You'll probably die if you aren'ta ninja but the game won't force you.

[*Regulator* Curt 93]

That's true but people don't need to eat and drink every hour either. Finding food and drink adds challenge to the game - something the game is lacking. Shitting and sleeping makes no sense and I would never suggest they be added to gameplay. Shitting can be done anywhere, anytime so there is no challenge and therefore no value in adding it to the game and sleeping is a non-activity, why would you put non-play into a game? Necessitating sex makes little sense in game also with all those goats wandering around.

Not only do I find that it's entirely possible that your proposed system is not possible, it would be very hard to implement because how can you distinguish between friend/foe contact? Does sitting 5 feet away and typing to someone trying to murder you count as human interaction (even though he doesn't respond)? Does that make your character *less* crazy? More than that, not only will the enforced grouping thing scare people (myself included) away from this game, it will create less variety and option in a game that is all about freedom. This is an artificial thing, it does not fit. Even if it is somewhat based on a realistic concept.

I'm all for customization, but you shouldn't go around trying to eliminate play styles you may not appreciate but that others do. I don't even play lone wolf, I only play with the group that I'm a part of, and I'd still quit if this were ever implemented (or anything similar). Instead of punishing one form of play, we should punish stupid gameplay. Being alone isn't necessarily a bad choice... but running around shooting in town is necessarily a bad choice from an authentic standpoint. What if a bandit hears you? What if a zombie hears you? These are all questions you'd ask yourself in real life, but virtually no one can get to the sound of gun shots unless really close, and zombies are hardly a threat. Here's how I'd go about fixing that:

1. Boost the noise (both the stat that zombies hear, and the actual noise) that guns make by a significant amount (especially sniper rifles).

2. Boost zombie speed (quite a bit) and/or boost their damage per hit (1,000 - 2,000 blood) and make bleeding a certainty (though it can be low, just make bandages necessary)

3. To compensate, making sure the game doesn't become ridiculously difficult, lower the amount of zombies that spawn by a small number of people bya good amount *except* for the military spawns (airfields, Stary tents) but not fire stations. However, make sure that a large group of people will still spawn a large amount of zombies -- to keep group play interesting.

4. Add a hands on your head or get on the ground option (I don't know if these is even possible). What it will do is put you in a stance where you are froze, can't move, can't do anything except access your inventory. To exit this mode, takes like 3-4 seconds, you will be unable to fight back for 3-4 seconds.

5. Make military ammunition spawns less common everywhere except for the airfields and starry (fire stations and deer stands included) making ammo more precious.

And there you go, problems solved. You'll be punished if you simply kill people on sight near or in towns. You'll not have to fear human interaction as much because you'll know that them shooting you would probably get them killed (thus they'd be less likely to do it), not to mention they'd be conserving their ammo. Bandits would have additional options for getting their loot, so that it isn't always shoot on sight. End game will be harder/longer due to less military ammo and military stuff only spawning in the super hot spots. Server strain will be decreased due to amount of zombies. Zombies will go back to being freaky freaky. The only people punished are those who killed senselessly, act without thinking, or aren't cautious enough.

Is there anything wrong with these suggestions? Seems to me they'd only make things better. Soloing is just as easy, team play is just as easy, the only thing that's harder to do is being an idiot, cus you'll actually be punished for it.

[bigblockelectra 4]

Or would that flood the forums with "teh zombie iz too hard waaaaaa?"

Would you prefer that to the current "teh pvp iz too hard waaaaaa"

[Icus 24]

It amuses me that, in a real zombie apocalypse, many on the forums seem to think everyone would hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and work together in a world full of monsters ready to eat them at every turn. That's not the case. Ever see what happens in a city during a mass evacuation? Here's a hint: It's not cooperation. Sure, many people do the right thing and flee with their families, but many also stay behind and pilfer what was left behind. They smash open stores, homes, etc and loot whatever they can because at the end of the day, humans are opportunists. Sniping a lone player in a field is an opportunity in this game. An opportunity for rare loot, or basic supplies, that enhance your ability to survive.

Believe it or not, there is already a great incentive for group play: It's more fun. I usually play solo but also often manage to get friends together once or twice a week to go on loot runs, hunt for players or vehicles, etc. You can't trust someone you just met, that's the way of the world. A false, videogamey reward for group play like bonus damage against zombies or a higher chance for loot or whatever it is you think the game should do to force players to play how you want would undermine everything this game does so well: the freedom to do what you want.