Fridge Logic; There is no Bandit - Thoughts on the 'Anti-Game'

[Swi1ch 39]

I wrote a post in response to this' date=' but then I realised you missed the point entirely, and would probably do so again.

[/quote']

Okay, you have fresh eyes here. So, let's see your reply.

His response to my OP was based on my belief that there is no bandits in game, which is not what I meant.

When I say "there is no bandit" I mean from a mechanical standpoint. The mechanics of the game neither enforce nor block a player from playing as a bandit or not a bandit, and the one mechanic that sort of does (The humanity system and skin change) seems totally out of place. Sure, banditry happens, and there are bandits, and they are bandits because we call them that, but this is not what I was getting at.

Edit for this point. By mechanics I mean stuff that actually and immediately effects your ingame character, so something like a longer respawn for banditry would cover that. I don't mean from a game theory or metagame perspective; shooting first because you're more likely to survive etc, as this isn't directly enforced by the game.

My point is that a lot of discussion on the forums is "what should be done about bandits", and counter-arguments to that, when actually it's a moot point. If you try and 'do something about it', you're forcing players down a specific route, which is not the object of the game.

I need another pot of coffee before I can write something more coherent than the above, but that's about the gist of it.

There is a key point being missed by all who are in favor of leaving no game mechanic to deal with bandits: Murdering other players is the ONLY playstyle where even if you fail' date=' you are back in the game after loading and ready to do it again. A spray of Makarov bullets will take you down, no matter how much you covet your pile of shiny gear.[/quote']

This is sort of what I was talking about regarding conditioning. We've learned that griefing is bad; back in the CS days you'd get kicked from servers for flashbanging your own team at spawn, and nowadays games like TF2 have no player collision in order to avoid spawn blocking etc. DayZ doesn't have anti-griefing, and to attempt to limit it would impact on those who aren't 'pure' griefing, and forcing people down a specific route again.

Also' date=' I actively mock anyone who thinks it is more realistic to have no one able to tell if you are a killer. The only reason why you are killing people on a server to grief their experiences is because there are no ramifications to you. If there were more severe ramifications, you wouldn't play at all.

[/quote']

Essentially, in DayZ, this is allowed. This is the big difference.

I think the problem is that altruism is not rewarded and banditry...or being a fucking psychopath is rewarded based on your faceless anonymity and the complete lack of consequences for your actions. I thought the bandit skins were a good half step towards solving this' date='

[/quote']

I guess this is my point in a nutshell. What exactly needs solving? Is there actually something wrong with this?

I would also make the argument that co-operation is rewarded, as it's much easier to get in and out of high-tier loot areas with a group than solo.

[Mjolnir (DayZ) 1]

What's the benefit of not being a bandit?

Answer? There is none.

Welcome to CoD with Zombies.

COD already has zombies...

[callahan9119 7]

Yes, but it's impossible to do that unless you have people you know outside the game to do this with. It is almost impossible to do that just within the game, and that is almost required to deal with the benefits that "bandits" get by virtue of their faceless persona and the lack of any consequence for their actions. Most games deal with with this by trying to make it balanced. Gameplay requires balance. You can't allow people to act like psychopaths and have no consequences, I'm not talking about penalties, but you should be represented as what you are.

I'm not saying if you kill a couple dudes you should be reskinned, but if you clearly are a crazy person you should look like it, most of us would be able to tell who is a batshit crazy motherfucker in real life and avoid them.

[Swi1ch 39]

I imagine it would get rid of the random griefing snipers and other nonsense and replace it with actual bandit raiding in teams and whatnot.

This is what I mean by bucket thinking; what, specifically, is wrong with random sniping?

There's lots of reasons people have for this; it's not realistic, it's not in the spirit of the game, it's just to troll people etc. And you know what? I actually agree, to an extent. When I snipe people, it's because i'm role-playing a character that supplies himself off of the hard work of others, but I am aware that many people do it just for shits and giggles. What I don't agree with, is that anything needs to be done to stop it.

If anything, it's not a bandit problem. Rather, it's a direction problem. People like to shoot other people out of lack of anything else to do. Being as DayZ is alpha, this may change as the game develops, but to install mechanics into the game to dissuade people from PK'ing doesn't make sense, as you're forcing people down a set path, and especially as later on the game may come to a state where a hard mechanic like this may be detrimental.

[callahan9119 7]

I don't mind you sniping me in theory, but I want you to be known as a dangerous guy on appearance for gameplay purposes. You need some kind of mechanic to replicate human intuition of knowing a guy is a horrible bastard.

[Swi1ch 39]

I don't mind you sniping me in theory' date=' but I want you to be known as a dangerous guy on appearance for gameplay purposes. You need some kind of mechanic to replicate human intuition of knowing a guy is a horrible bastard.

[/quote']

Wouldn't the sort of people who are most likely to kill others go to great lengths to make sure they look 'normal'?

How you ensure that you could differentiate between 'griefers' and 'proper' bandits? What about if a innocent player is forced to kill in order to not starve?

[Gibbonici 9]

I don't mind you sniping me in theory' date=' but I want you to be known as a dangerous guy on appearance for gameplay purposes. You need some kind of mechanic to replicate human intuition of knowing a guy is a horrible bastard.

[/quote']

We don't need a mechanic for that because we've already got our own intuition if we take a few seconds to use it. We'll need a mechanic even less once direct comms works, then we can talk to others without taking our finger off the trigger.

[perestain 33]

Nice OP,

but I see some fundamental problems...

A pure 'innocent' player is at some point going to have to make the decision whether or not to temporarily go 'bad'' date=' and kill a player for food so he can survive.

[/quote']

This is simply not true. There is no necessity whatsoever for PvP to survive. I played for many of days without murdering anyone and at all times had way more supply than I could carry.

It was never about food, but rather about "Do I keep the scoped m4 for which I already have 6 magazines or do I take the silenced mp5 and look for more magazines as my backup, since I am happy with my dmr otherwise..."

I agree that the game gives you freedom to play as you please, but the choice you make is exactly that,

A CHOICE.

I find it really disturbing how many people try to portray the myth that you _have_ to kill other players to survive and get food. It doesn't at all correlate with my experience in the game world. The game forces you nothing. As I said, I survived easily for like a week and never murdered anyone, no probs.

I heavily suspect that the idea that the game forces you to kill other players is an apologetic way of thinking. There is an unspoken consensus that its somehow bad to ruin another persons progress in the game, and therefore people come up with this poor excuse about how they needed the beans, so they don't have to feel ashamed of themselves. I don't buy this however, as you easily get 3 times the beans in the same time if you just loot some houses. I tried it out fyi.

Unless so many people don't admit to themselves that they find it simply entertaining to ruin the progress of other players, and do it BY CHOICE,

unless this doesn't happen, there is no real chance for a helpful and honest discussion about PvP vs coop play.

Unless this doesn't happen we cannot even begin to argue about whether its good or bad that the game gives us this type of complete freedom.

Imho the game is quite an experience which wouldn't be possible if PKing was reglemented, so I am happy about the removal of bandit skins and am against the idea of punishment for PKing. Playing a survivor would be cheap if the game rewarded you for it in any way.

[ClinClin 1]

I so far think that what has been written in this thread is much closer to the point than other "PvP" threads I read on these forums. Thanks guys for the interesting read.

I myself think that pvp in the game would benefit more if it was made still more close to the "prisoner dilemma" type of choices for the players.

I liked the idea of "humanity" parameters. I wish that it stayed, basically, in the same form as it was, with no impact on skins, though. I also wish that one's "humanity" was visible to others. That, I think, would make the difference similar to the one which is between the limit- and no-limit holdem poker.

[Gibbonici 9]

I also wish that one's "humanity" was visible to others.

I don't. I think seeing other players' humanity would mean the game would be playing a large part of itself for us. Figuring out whether you can trust someone is a huge part of DayZ, and it takes balls and trust in your own intuition. It's not easy and the game would be diminished if it were made so.

[Supershutze 0]

What's the benefit of not being a bandit?

Answer? There is none.

Welcome to CoD with Zombies.

The benefit is: I don't shoot you on sight. Many other players also shoot bandits on sight.

[Swi1ch 39]

Nice OP' date='

but I see some fundamental problems...

A pure 'innocent' player is at some point going to have to make the decision whether or not to temporarily go 'bad', and kill a player for food so he can survive.

This is simply not true. There is no necessity whatsoever for PvP to survive. I played for many of days without murdering anyone and at all times had way more supply than I could carry.

I should probably have worded that better. I didn't meant to imply that there is always going to be a situation in which murder is a necessity; I meant more that sometimes, some innocent players are going to have to do so, and to then punish them for completing the only goal the game provides, surviving, makes no sense.

I find it really disturbing how many people try to portray the myth that you _have_ to kill other players to survive and get food. It doesn't at all correlate with my experience in the game world. The game forces you nothing. As I said, I survived easily for like a week and never murdered anyone, no probs.

I heavily suspect that the idea that the game forces you to kill other players is an apologetic way of thinking. There is an unspoken consensus that its somehow bad to ruin another persons progress in the game, and therefore people come up with this poor excuse about how they needed the beans, so they don't have to feel ashamed of themselves. I don't buy this however, as you easily get 3 times the beans in the same time if you just loot some houses. I tried it out fyi.

No, you don't have to, but you can, and that's part of the role play. I could quite easily go and loot those houses over there, but it's much safer for me to wait for someone else to do it, leave the danger zone, and take the supplies from them. How you go about getting supplies is entirely your choice, and based almost entirely upon role-play.

Unless so many people don't admit to themselves that they find it simply entertaining to ruin the progress of other players, and do it BY CHOICE,

unless this doesn't happen, there is no real chance for a helpful and honest discussion about PvP vs coop play.

Unless this doesn't happen we cannot even begin to argue about whether its good or bad that the game gives us this type of complete freedom.

This comes back to my OP pretty hard; do we actually need to do something about griefing? Is it actually a problem? We may feel like it's a problem, as anything considered griefing in other games is immediately stamped down upon, but this is not other games, and doesn't function at all in line with them. There's also a big difference between players who like to kill other players for entertainment just to annoy them, and players who like to kill other players for entertainment from a role-play perspective. It would be nigh impossible to really differentiate between them.

[Sminky 5]

it''s a good point, but the game is full (slightly including myself) that wouldnt kill another if theer was a quick way to communicate friendly without taking your finger off the trigger.

the PvP is defiently what makes this game, a good mechanic to make it not the only option would hugley improve it though.

[ClinClin 1]

I also wish that one's "humanity" was visible to others.

I don't. I think seeing other players' humanity would mean the game would be playing a large part of itself for us. Figuring out whether you can trust someone is a huge part of DayZ' date=' and it takes balls and trust in your own intuition. It's not easy and the game would be diminished if it were made so.

[/quote']

I am not 100% sure the idea is good myself, but I am sure that if not, it's not for the reasons you told. Currently, there are no reasons to bother with figuring out whether you can trust someone, because the strategy of not trusting is winning enough. And any alternative strategies simply have no incentives, under the current game mechanics. So, no balls are involved, really.

[Bhruic 1]

This is what I mean by bucket thinking; what' date=' specifically, is wrong with random sniping?

[/quote']

I think you've backed yourself into a corner there, because what's wrong with randomly sniping is exactly what you've been talking about - it doesn't fit with the only goal of the game, survival. People who randomly snipe, or people who spawn on the beach, charge off with their pistol to find someone to kill, just to do it over again, they aren't caring about surviving. If they happen to do so, great, but if not, they know they'll just respawn with a gun, plenty of clips, and the ability to set it all up again. So if there is no penalty for not surviving, then stating that the only "rule" of the game is surviving is no longer true.

Sure, for people who have all the best gear, not surviving causes you to lose that, and have to start fresh, so that's a penalty. But lots of the "griefers" don't have all the best gear, and don't care about it. The loss becomes meaningless. If people in your survival game aren't playing it to survive, wouldn't you agree that there is a broken mechanic somewhere that is enabling that behaviour?

[Swi1ch 39]

This is what I mean by bucket thinking; what' date=' specifically, is wrong with random sniping?

[/quote']

I think you've backed yourself into a corner there, because what's wrong with randomly sniping is exactly what you've been talking about - it doesn't fit with the only goal of the game, survival. People who randomly snipe, or people who spawn on the beach, charge off with their pistol to find someone to kill, just to do it over again, they aren't caring about surviving. If they happen to do so, great, but if not, they know they'll just respawn with a gun, plenty of clips, and the ability to set it all up again. So if there is no penalty for not surviving, then stating that the only "rule" of the game is surviving is no longer true.

Sure, for people who have all the best gear, not surviving causes you to lose that, and have to start fresh, so that's a penalty. But lots of the "griefers" don't have all the best gear, and don't care about it. The loss becomes meaningless. If people in your survival game aren't playing it to survive, wouldn't you agree that there is a broken mechanic somewhere that is enabling that behaviour?

I pointed this out in an earlier post, albeit not the OP, that the issue may not lie in banditry, but in game direction. Of course, I also pointed out that providing too much direction is also counter to the spirit of the game.

Hey, perhaps i'm wrong about the only goal being survival. It's definitely a survival game, and in other survival games you 'lose' if you don't, but this isn't a regular game, so perhaps survival is the only goal you have to work towards, if you so want to. Perhaps denying other people their survival is a goal also?

I would also point out that if someone who is wanting to play 'correctly', and want to survive for as long as possible, is probably doing it wrong if they're anywhere near a location in which players who want to zerg-rush other players with the Makarov upon spawning. In this case, I would say the penalty for griefing is that you then can only zerg on other griefers, as other players with an ounce of sense are nowhere near the spawn locations. It's not even close to difficult to get away from bean-war-beach, so I refuse to accept that as an argument for dealing with griefing, but I guess this is besides the point.

If I was going to be pedantic, I would point out that randomly sniping someone doesn't make you not survive.

Edit.

I think what i'm getting at over all, is that situations that may arise in DayZ, such as getting sniped upon entering a town for what appears to be no reason, we're automatically assuming are problems, because that doesn't jibe with what we know about games. Instead, we should be then be understanding that that is what happens in this game, regardless of what we have played before.

[Bhruic 1]

Well, now you are moving the goalposts. Yes, people can come up with their own goals, but that doesn't make the goals "right" or "correct" for the game. People can, if they want to, play CoD by going and hiding in a corner and never shooting their gun. They can make it their goal to be a pacifist. But someone telling them they are playing the game "wrong" would likely be correct.

As for players being "wrong" for being near griefers, when we can control where we spawn when we die, you might have a point. Certainly, removing yourself from the beach is preferable, but you can't do that instantaneously. And for some spawn locations, it can be exceedingly difficult. Not to mention the fact that the only 5 hospitals in the game are all in cities right by the coast.

But that is all tangential to the point. If, as you stated, the only "rule" for the game is survival, then behaviour that is counter-productive to that goal shouldn't be accepted. If there are other goals, then your original suggestion that survival is the only goal isn't true, and the conclusions you made based on that assumption are no longer supported (for example, if the goals are to survive, and cause others to not survive, how is that ruleset any different than standard FPS DM?).

An edit for your edit: No one is denying that it happens, but you are using "it happens" as justification for it happening. The issue isn't whether it does happen, but whether it should happen.

[LastShenanigan 8]

Great post OP

Some players should take a note from all the "What If" apocalypse specials that some of the science channels like to play. They almost always suggest staying away from cities and only trusting people you know. No repercussions for your actions is a problem for all style of players. Yes, theres no repercussions for a bandit if they die. They simply run up to the next person they see, kill them and take their stuff. However, the same applies to the survivors who run into heavily populated areas everytime they spawn because it's the easiest place to find gear. You aren't actually concerned with your life, only your gear. Too many people seem to think they're playing the game the way it is intended and everyone else should be encouraged to play their way. Simply put, setting up a permanent settlement and playing "the sims" is not possible in a game where the servers are limited to around 50 people who come and go as they please. It's also not entirely in keeping with the games brutal nature, you're intended to survive as long as can, not keep adding more and more buffers between you and the apocalypse until there is no more danger. It's assinine to assume people would stop complaining if they go their way. "ok, no more bandits! Only large established groups going to war over power plants in the apocalypse makes sense to players." It'll only last until the first faction of players gets wiped out, loses all their locations and gear. They'll then come to the forums to complain how PvP is too harsh in this game The biggest hurdle for people who want forced cooperation is that everyone else fully realizes they're playing a video game.

Lets be serious, large groups of players already form up and take over areas in Dayz. It gives them a huge advantage over other survivors whom they generally don't trust for fear of losing their gear. The only way to get two players, who have just run into each other, who don't know each other, to suddenly cooperation completely with each other... is to force them. I am in favor of permanant names, so people who constantly betray others can at least develop a reputation as someone to avoid. Unless we ban every player that ever dies, no one will ever hold their characters life as more important then their gear. That goes for everyone, not just bandits. You're upset because you lost all your gear, not because someone killed your character. If you want repercussions for dying they should apply to ALL players. Spouting insults like "Carebear" or "COD Kid" is juvenile on both sides and everyone should be embarrassed.

Shenanigan out!

[aragos 1]

So' date=' I had a Fridge Logic moment;

There's a lot of discussion on the subject of Bandits in DayZ; both the humanity mechanic, and the action of firing upon or otherwise being hostile to other players. After hearing Rocket refer to DayZ as the 'Anti-Game', I realised that we have all fallen into the same conditioned box of thinking.

Side note; Rockpapershotgun did a 3 part review on a game called Pathologic, which is definitely an 'Anti-game'. You should read it if you care about games at all.

What do I mean by this? I mean that games have conditioned us to think in certain ways (And I don't mean this in a 'put on your tinfoil hat before the ten year old who saw GTA kills everyone way). An example of this:

You're playing an RPG. Skyrim, Fallout, whatever. You're wandering around, and you see the entrance to a cave. Unless you've never played a game before, you immediately know a few things;

1. The cave has bad guys in it, that will likely grow larger in number or power the further down into the cave you go.

2. The cave may begin or be included in a quest that relates to the main or a sub-plot.

3. The cave probably has shiny things in it that you can pick up to sell or use.

That's how a typical game would handle a cave. In DayZ, or an 'Anti-Game', that cave you stumbled upon might;

1. Take you ten minutes to travel through, only to come to a dead end.

2. Have a few enemies a quarter of the way in, and a single can of beans right at the end.

3. Just kill you as soon as you walk through the door, because you're not meant to go in there in there, at all.

These sort of responses are difficult for players (including myself) to get used to, because they are not in line with what we 'know' about games.

How does this relate to DayZ? Well, because the vast majority of us have fallen into a bucket that we can think only within. Conditioned views of 'what the game is'. Some standard bucket thoughts go something like the following;

1. This is a game where I team up with players to kill/survive vs zombies.

2. This is game where I kill players, with the added challenge of avoiding zombies.

3. This is a game where the goal is to find the best items available in the game.

None of these are right. However, none of these are wrong, either. DayZ doesn't fit within our normal boundaries of what a game 'is'. The closest I can come to for what I think what DayZ 'is', is a game where you try and survive. That's it. Adding anything to the end of that is just a method.

So how does this apply to Bandits? Well, once I started thinking about the game like this, I realised it was somewhat out of place to have this arbitrary point where a player become a 'bad guy'. It's sort of like a punishment (or reward, depending on your point of view), and thus you perform an action and face the consequences of it in a really 'gamey' way. People with bucket thinking want this consequence to be amplified (Longer respawn times for players who kill other players, negative side effects on their character, stuff like that), because they have decided that this is the 'wrong' way to play. Opponents to that line of thinking typically cite 'realism' as the reason for allowing Banditry.

Fact is, the reason Banditry is allowed in this game, is because it is in the game. It is neither right nor wrong, it just happens in this particular game world and mechanics. To punish or reward the choice to kill players make no sense, because that is pushing players towards a particular route. There is no route in DayZ. A good example of this is moral choice systems in games, where it is clearly better to pick one or the other, or to only go with one to maximise the benefit. The benefit of any action in DayZ is entirely dependent upon the situation, and this is where it's role-playing strengths are most apparent. A pure 'innocent' player is at some point going to have to make the decision whether or not to temporarily go 'bad', and kill a player for food so he can survive. A pure 'bad' player is at some point going to have to make the choice whether to co-operate with people so he can survive.

In the end, it is moral ambiguity that is what makes DayZ super interesting. Your mechanical choices at any point only affect that point in time; you sneak into a town and grab some loot. Once you're out of the town, that choice is now near irrelevant. Your role-playing choices however will carry over from before; you shot some guys and have decided to go 'straight'. This will have a constant effect on what you do but this is never enforced by the game.

We are all bandits, and none of us are bandits. We're not supposed to be one or the other. We don't even have to pick. It just is, and that's all there is to it.

Post needs editing badly, but in my world, editing is not needed.

[/quote']

This is an excellent post. Well reasoned, well thought-out. Very good.

The only thing I can think to add is the history of RPGs. Nearly all games post 1977 or so, are based in one way or another on Dungeons and Dragons. Deeper you go, tougher it is. Expect a Boss Fight. He'll have good stuff. Build up characters, skills etc. That is what we sort of have been conditioned to think of as a "game"--and most fall into it. The second type is a wargame, what D&D itself was based on. Short term, scenario based, with goals, objectives, et al, in a military environment. There have been some exceptions (I think Avalon Hill back in the 70s did a game called 'Survival' which is strangely familiar to DayZ...just sayin). While I'm not a fan, 'games' like Spore, Sim City, the Sims, etc. are more of the sandbox/anti-game 'games.'

DayZ is managing to do both in a single game. If you don't like PvP--hint--get the f**k out of town, fast. If you like it, just go to town and start the party.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

I think you've backed yourself into a corner there' date=' because what's wrong with randomly sniping is exactly what you've been talking about - it doesn't fit with the only goal of the game, survival. People who randomly snipe, or people who spawn on the beach, charge off with their pistol to find someone to kill, just to do it over again, they aren't caring about surviving. If they happen to do so, great, but if not, they know they'll just respawn with a gun, plenty of clips, and the ability to set it all up again. So if there is no penalty for not surviving, then stating that the only "rule" of the game is surviving is no longer true.

Sure, for people who have all the best gear, not surviving causes you to lose that, and have to start fresh, so that's a penalty. But lots of the "griefers" don't have all the best gear, and don't care about it. The loss becomes meaningless. If people in your survival game aren't playing it to survive, wouldn't you agree that there is a broken mechanic somewhere that is enabling that behaviour?

[/quote']

hmm rocket said himself random sniping is fine though

[colosseum 2]

Yep.

Giant effortposts on the forum aren't really going to change anything... considering that we've all been posting like this for literally months now and have always arrived at the same conclusion... that PvP is just a fact of life in this game.

I've stopped worrying about it!

[aragos 1]

Great post OP

Some players should take a note from all the "What If" apocalypse specials that some of the science channels like to play. They almost always suggest staying away from cities and only trusting people you know. No repercussions for your actions is a problem for all style of players. Yes' date=' theres no repercussions for a bandit if they die. They simply run up to the next person they see, kill them and take their stuff. However, the same applies to the survivors who run into heavily populated areas everytime they spawn because it's the easiest place to find gear. You aren't actually concerned with your life, only your gear. Too many people seem to think they're playing the game the way it is intended and everyone else should be encouraged to play their way. Simply put, setting up a permanent settlement and playing "the sims" is not possible in a game where the servers are limited to around 50 people who come and go as they please. It's also not entirely in keeping with the games brutal nature, you're intended to survive as long as can, not keep adding more and more buffers between you and the apocalypse until there is no more danger. It's assinine to assume people would stop complaining if they go their way. "ok, no more bandits! Only large established groups going to war over power plants in the apocalypse makes sense to players." It'll only last until the first faction of players gets wiped out, loses all their locations and gear. They'll then come to the forums to complain how PvP is too harsh in this game The biggest hurdle for people who want forced cooperation is that everyone else fully realizes they're playing a video game.

Lets be serious, large groups of players already form up and take over areas in Dayz. It gives them a huge advantage over other survivors whom they generally don't trust for fear of losing their gear. The only way to get two players, who have just run into each other, who don't know each other, to suddenly cooperation completely with each other... is to force them. I am in favor of permanant names, so people who constantly betray others can at least develop a reputation as someone to avoid. Unless we ban every player that ever dies, no one will ever hold their characters life as more important then their gear. That goes for everyone, not just bandits. You're upset because you lost all your gear, not because someone killed your character. If you want repercussions for dying they should apply to ALL players. Spouting insults like "Carebear" or "COD Kid" is juvenile on both sides and everyone should be embarrassed.

Shenanigan out!

[/quote']

Amen brother Shen. Awesome points all. Great observation that it isn't about character life (since we really don't have characters, xps, classes, etc.) but about the gear. All of which you can get again.

I'm starting to really grok this game a bit more. It isn't even about the gear. It's about the story of how you got it. People get pissed when the story doesn't turn out the way they wanted or imaganed it to be. Super Killer gets popped by the noob when he hits the wrong button. Yeah, that sucks, but mostly it messes with his internal novel ("and there I was, stalking a noob when this carebear popped me for looting bodies. How gay!"). The same goes with the opposite player--"I wanted to be friends but was shocked, shocked to find murder was going on in a lawless world filled with high powered firearms and limited resources. Wah!"

Its about the story.

[Katana67 2907]

Good read.

There is no spoon, so people need to stop acting like their spoon is better.

Survival is complete causality, cause and effect. If you can't deal with the effects of your actions, then you're not going to survive very long or have a very rewarding experience.

[aragos 1]

This is what I mean by bucket thinking; what' date=' specifically, is wrong with random sniping?

[/quote']

I think you've backed yourself into a corner there, because what's wrong with randomly sniping is exactly what you've been talking about - it doesn't fit with the only goal of the game, survival. People who randomly snipe, or people who spawn on the beach, charge off with their pistol to find someone to kill, just to do it over again, they aren't caring about surviving. If they happen to do so, great, but if not, they know they'll just respawn with a gun, plenty of clips, and the ability to set it all up again. So if there is no penalty for not surviving, then stating that the only "rule" of the game is surviving is no longer true.

Sure, for people who have all the best gear, not surviving causes you to lose that, and have to start fresh, so that's a penalty. But lots of the "griefers" don't have all the best gear, and don't care about it. The loss becomes meaningless. If people in your survival game aren't playing it to survive, wouldn't you agree that there is a broken mechanic somewhere that is enabling that behaviour?

I pointed this out in an earlier post, albeit not the OP, that the issue may not lie in banditry, but in game direction. Of course, I also pointed out that providing too much direction is also counter to the spirit of the game.

Hey, perhaps i'm wrong about the only goal being survival. It's definitely a survival game, and in other survival games you 'lose' if you don't, but this isn't a regular game, so perhaps survival is the only goal you have to work towards, if you so want to. Perhaps denying other people their survival is a goal also?

I would also point out that if someone who is wanting to play 'correctly', and want to survive for as long as possible, is probably doing it wrong if they're anywhere near a location in which players who want to zerg-rush other players with the Makarov upon spawning. In this case, I would say the penalty for griefing is that you then can only zerg on other griefers, as other players with an ounce of sense are nowhere near the spawn locations. It's not even close to difficult to get away from bean-war-beach, so I refuse to accept that as an argument for dealing with griefing, but I guess this is besides the point.

If I was going to be pedantic, I would point out that randomly sniping someone doesn't make you not survive.

Edit.

I think what i'm getting at over all, is that situations that may arise in DayZ, such as getting sniped upon entering a town for what appears to be no reason, we're automatically assuming are problems, because that doesn't jibe with what we know about games. Instead, we should be then be understanding that that is what happens in this game, regardless of what we have played before.

Good points all. Love the last paragraph.

I got to thinking how you could make the game, in a completely non-punitive way, reward survival (other than the sake of pure survival).

I think it was Napoleon who said "give me 10 yards of ribbon and I'll conquer Europe." Medals mean (in the military) public recognition. Ok, a public recog system.

Points for highest # of kills, per day, and per server. Put the name up in lights for all to see...and hunt.

Points for longest time surviving. Same thing.

Doesn't change the game--no punishment, no reward--but it does call out those who are really, really good at what they are doing.

Just an idea.

[travisfv 0]

Well I understand the hate for bandits, it takes a while if youre alone to get good gear. But I killed 2 people last night and I was shaking afterward. I don't do too well with pvp games, they stress me out too much.

But I got in after not being on for a day or so, and I was starving and thirsty. I had some water but no food. I had a winchester with about 90 shells. At first I was going to link up with my buddy, but I didnt have time. Blood loss was starting to get to me. I found two players and tracked them for a while. They were reckless. Constantly being attacked by zombies, using their M24 for a zed who was just 20 feet away. Even if I managed to get them to let me tag along, they wouldnt last long.

I followed until they were in a clearing, and they killed the next group that attacked them, then I crouched down by a tree, and opened fire. The sniper was hit immediately in the back, and dropped dead. His partner turned to look, and I put two more in him.

I have never shook before playing a game. I didnt feel good killing them. They were in a tough spot too. But without their supplies, I wouldnt have survived, and if I tried helping them, I still wouldnt have survived. I didnt want to kill them, but this game is about survival, and I needed to survive. But if I saw someone in need, and I could, I'd help them. But at that moment I was desparate.