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

[belt 0]

If there were in-game craftable items this would work. If a group comes together and makes uniforms for an anti-bandit police force, and those uniforms were unique. But they aren't. So even if someone says "Hey, I'll protect you from bandits!" you can't trust them.

Unless you know the person in real life. And without direct communication it's impossible to trust anyone.

Or, there needs to be a hard-coded mechanism for "Friendly?" and if someone responds "Yes" they are a hard coded friend, and if they kill you then they start to suffer mental problems in the game, getting worse over time until they shoot themselves out of misery and guilt. Or they can just do good things to get their head straight again.

[aragos 1]

^Travis: that is the Story. That is survival. Drama, impact, effects.

[Bilharzia 0]

But I killed 2 people last night and I was shaking afterward.

...

But without their supplies' date=' I wouldnt have survived,

...

But at that moment I was desparate.

[/quote']

At that moment you couldn't be bothered to find a can of beans so you shot two people in the back? I've heard this argument before and it's so weak, food and water is the easiest thing to find. I've been in the wilderness at below 400 fainting every 30 seconds and still managed to save myself without a double murder. You're desperate when you can't walk straight and your vision is shaking and you're blacking out. Try harder.

[JJWebby 0]

Are we running in circles here? The game is a sandbox zombie apocalypse.

If I want to randomly snipe people, I will. Sure, it's considered griefing or trolling but so what? Maybe I enjoy picking off survivors from a rooftop.

How about from the other side? I'm running down a street and bang. I get shot in the leg. Should have been more careful there.

How about I team up with this other survivor, we know there's a sniper so let's team up to take him down.

Players can be the biggest dicks they want, people will be angry but in the end that's just how it is.

Don't say "Oh this is unrealistic, this wouldn't happen in a real apocalypse."

It would, people would be looking to kill potential threats or get a kick out it.

Just deal with it and cut the drama.

Another thing, if you're getting killed by bandits with makarovs when you have high tier supplies, perhaps you should be more aware of your surroundings?

[septuscap 42]

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.

[/quote']

He hasn't backed himself into a corner, his initial assumption was just slightly off. The goal of the game is NOT survival, that is just one of many valid goals in a SANDBOX GAME.

One day a player may want to stealth through an infested city and resupply. The very same player may not feel up to it later and pick off a survivor who just did the work for him. Another player may notice a bunch of idiots yelling that they're in cherno and feel the need to offer them a lesson in discretion. Another still may have loads of leftover cz ammo that he wants to burn before switching over to his dmr.

You're not entitled to prance through cherno with impunity. You're in a sandbox game with thousands of players with their own set of circumstances. And this isn't strictly a roleplaying game, no one has to create a "realistic" psyche that justifies their actions to you. My family has just been ravaged by zombies and I want to kill you all. Satisfied?

So like I said, I'm sympathetic to the fact that the game offers no dynamic (useful) interactions with "the other," and that should (imo) be remedied (with the POSSIBILITY of useful interactions with unknown players, ESPECIALLY where a group can interact with another unknown group), but I am equally excited about the PvP because it's NOT a deathmatch. Your "prey" may be setting up a tent, resupplying in a city, meeting up with friends, hunting ANOTHER player, and all the while you may be being hunted as well. Sandbox PvP is in no way comparable to the simple "spawn in a 10x10 box and try and kill each other" deathmatch. So put away the holier than thou attitude for fuck's sake.

"ok' date=' 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.

[/quote']

I assume you're talking about my idea of operational powerplants and what not. The idea isn't that this would eliminate bandits at all. It would just give me a potential reason to not slaughter another group of players if I so desired, which I think is what the 'cooperative' players actually want. They don't want no PvP, they want more interesting dynamics between unknown players. I think it could only add to the experience.

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

I think there definitely still is a 'bandit'. As sandbox as we'd like the game to be, it still has it's restrictions.

A sandbox provides options. Whereas most 'games' provide a fairly linear experience which developers have gotten rather good at disguising.

The bandit situation tends to stand out like dogs balls because there really is a lack of other options. Our gear and environment are abundant with choice (mostly due to it being a focus of ArmA and something that has had years of work put into it) but when it comes to morality or anything that deviates from self-defense, it's quite underdeveloped. Hence why we have an overly simplified system that feels like it doesn't measure up. It's fight or flight, black and white. (look at me, i'm flying a kite!)

It'll take time and work to evolve, but I definitely wouldn't call the current situation a sandbox. That's a bit of an illusion brought about by the fact that your experience is being highly influenced by others, not by underlying game mechanics that cater to human psychology.

[Frank Horrigan 0]

I have seen some crap sack situations in real life and believe it or not some people would kill other people just for the fun of it if they could get away with it. It doesn't help that Internet Sociopathy is rampant. I have been randomly sniped many times and while yes it sucks, it is part of "life" in the "game." There truly is no wrong way to play Day Z and in my not humble opinion nothing should be done to punish PKing. There is no such thing as a wrong or right way to play.

[septuscap 42]

It'll take time and work to evolve' date=' but I definitely wouldn't call the current situation a sandbox.

[/quote']

I think the game has a lot of room to grow but it is in fact a sandbox. You have a 15x15km map, gear/mob/player spawns, and no win condition. I've seen people war in cherno/elektro, make caravans of vehicles, live in the wilderness, avoid players, hunt players, hesitantly greet players (usually followed by a bullet to the back), hole up in a building, scavenge supplies from the building and move on, truce with players in order to take out a sniper, take advantage of a fire fight to take out both sides.

This is not linear play. I think player interactions could use a little more depth for sure, but you know the drill (alpha/etc).

[Bhruic 1]

He hasn't backed himself into a corner' date=' his initial assumption was just slightly off. The goal of the game is NOT survival, that is just one of many valid goals in a SANDBOX GAME. [/quote']

That's exactly what I meant with "backed himself into a corner". If there are persuable goals that don't rely on survival, using the premise that the goal of the game is survival doesn't fit.

You're not entitled to prance through cherno with impunity. You're in a sandbox game with thousands of players with their own set of circumstances. And this isn't strictly a roleplaying game, no one has to create a "realistic" psyche that justifies their actions to you. My family has just been ravaged by zombies and I want to kill you all. Satisfied?

But your own example illustrates my point nicely. No, you can't "prance through cherno" with impunity. If you do that, you suffer consequences. But what are the consequences for someone who's only goal is to spawn, hunt someone down with his starter gear, and try and kill them? Death? Death isn't a consequence, as respawning takes a matter of minutes, after which they can go right back to what they were doing.

So people suggest some potential consequences to that sort of behaviour, and are told that such behaviour is perfectly allowed, and there shouldn't be any sort of consequences. So if no consequences should be applied here, why shouldn't the person in your example be allowed to prance through cherno? Why do they get singled out for consequences, but the griefer gets away scott-free?

Note, I'm not suggesting in any way that PvP should be removed. I'm simply pointing out that certain behaviour is detrimental as a whole to the game, and having game elements in place to discourage such behaviour wouldn't be unwarranted.

So put away the holier than thou attitude for fuck's sake.

I'm sorry, what "holier than thou" attitude? I was under the assumption we were having a rational discussion about this.

[Sgt.Spam 42]

Finally a decent game design discussion.

[Decoy (DayZ) 0]

Than by all means' date=' CoD is that way.

Now, before someone jumps on me for being a carebear keep in mind that I actually have no problems with PKs in general. The first time I was killed I said "Whateva!" And the second time someone tried to get me I got the jump on them.

I also feel that the bandit skin doesn't work too well as a deterrent against those who are just going to suicide over and over again on players who are actually trying to survive.

It IS unfair to some to leave the option out. I don't believe EVERYONE who PKs does so because they want to just kill people over and over again without any ramifications. But there are plenty of those who do, and seem to want this game to to become their personal playground where they can hop on with the ease of any dm game out there and waste people...except most of the people they run into aren't willing to fire first.

But really, what IS the difficulty in playing this game as a pure bandit? You kill someone, you have everything you need to survive that other people have to carefully prepare for. You die, you start over with the stuff you need to just keep killing other players.

To clarify my point:

A survivor needs to know where water sources are, make sure they can find food, maybe grab a knife to hunt animals, supplies to repair a vehicle, ammo to even get most of these as they have to go into zombie infested towns...

What does a bandit need? What he spawns with. On his way to hunt the richer targets that think the non-coast areas are safe, he can even pick up an extra gun along the way. Sometimes you can play by being a survivor at first and then switching to a bandit, but you achieve your goals faster by abusing a trust system survivors often need.

[/quote']

You don't understand what this thread is about. And that's okay. But you also think your input is valuable. That needs to be corrected.

Play with your toys and keep quiet while the adults have a conversation.

[joshuabeatdown 2]

What's the benefit of not being a bandit?

Answer? There is none.

Welcome to CoD with Zombies.

Kill bandits, take their gear. Which is usually better than survivors. Being friendly doesn't mean don't kill bandits.

Also if this was "CoD with Zombies" then the map would be tiny, less people, and no loot. Not even close to COD. If you don't like PvP play the single player version floating around, or play Dead Island, or L4D for co-op zombie killing.

[callahan9119 7]

I just find most of the arguments in favor of being able to act like a psychopath (and that's what it is) are basing their argument on "that's how it would be in real life", when I think that is completely untrue.

How it is now is what happens when you let the average player do whatever he wants in a game with no consequences. People don't turn into murdering psychopaths just because they don't have beans and don't want to go look in a barn 2 minutes away. You know that food and stuff is all over the place, you're killing people because you are fucking lazy or just because you can and you know he is just going to respawn. Not because it's the end of the world.

Stop using the reality argument, because it doesn't apply, you're behavior in this game is based on you knowing it's a game.

[Decoy (DayZ) 0]

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.

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.

You even quoted the relevant part of the post and still didn't get it. Holy shit.

Re-read the part of the OP that you quoted and tell me where it said that killing other players was required to survive.

[Sgt.Spam 42]

I just find most of the arguments in favor of being able to act like a psychopath (and that's what it is) are basing their argument on "that's how it would be in real life"' date=' when I think that is completely untrue.

How it is now is what happens when you let the average player do whatever he wants in a game with no consequences. People don't turn into murdering psychopaths just because they don't have beans and don't want to go look in a barn 2 minutes away. You know that food and stuff is all over the place, you're killing people because you are fucking lazy or just because you can and you know he is just going to respawn. Not because it's the end of the world.

Stop using the reality argument, because it doesn't apply, you're behavior in this game is based on you knowing it's a game.

[/quote']

+1

I think a large part of the douche baggery is due to the reasons listed above. I also think that the mod in its current state (yes, I'm aware that it's evolving) does not promote teamwork since communication is so hampered.

I think it would be interesting if there were ways to be a bandit without having to take a life. Using the "reality" argument, I think being able to temporarily sedate someone and then take their stuff would allow one to get around the issue of morality within this context.

[ParaB 114]

I just find most of the arguments in favor of being able to act like a psychopath (and that's what it is) are basing their argument on "that's how it would be in real life"' date=' when I think that is completely untrue.

How it is now is what happens when you let the average player do whatever he wants in a game with no consequences. People don't turn into murdering psychopaths just because they don't have beans and don't want to go look in a barn 2 minutes away. You know that food and stuff is all over the place, you're killing people because you are fucking lazy or just because you can and you know he is just going to respawn. Not because it's the end of the world.

Stop using the reality argument, because it doesn't apply, you're behavior in this game is based on you knowing it's a game.

[/quote']

Well said. Very well said.

[Sickerthansars 53]

What's the benefit of not being a bandit?

Answer? There is none.

Welcome to CoD with Zombies.

you live longer with a group of survivors than you do as a lone wolf bandit.

Enjoy your trek back to battlefield or whatever horrible reincarnation of MW1 you bought for the 4th or 5th time now.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

you live longer with a group of survivors than you do as a lone wolf bandit.

also decreases your chance of getting shot on sight

[septuscap 42]

But your own example illustrates my point nicely. No' date=' you can't "prance through cherno" with impunity. If you do that, you suffer consequences. But what are the consequences for someone who's only goal is to spawn, hunt someone down with his starter gear, and try and kill them? Death? Death isn't a consequence, as respawning takes a matter of minutes, after which they can go right back to what they were doing.

So people suggest some potential consequences to that sort of behaviour, and are told that such behaviour is perfectly allowed, and there shouldn't be any sort of consequences. So if no consequences should be applied here, why shouldn't the person in your example be allowed to prance through cherno? Why do they get singled out for consequences, but the griefer gets away scott-free? [/quote']

You're confusing player created consequences and GAME created consequences.

I'd like to see this spawn rushing tactic IN-GAME b/c I haven't died to it or SEEN it even. Even in Cherno/Elektro. If you die you're out a few minutes for loading and possibly another 10+ depending on where you spawn. Not only that, You should have better gear than a spawn rusher; a rifle, bandages, blood bags, possibly a group. If that isn't enough of an advantage you deserve to die imo. If you're dying to some one with a makarov you need to practice -- you should be able to pick him off at range and get on with your day. And of course, you're hanging out right next to the spawn point (relatively) crying about spawn rushing...

I'm sorry' date=' what "holier than thou" attitude? I was under the assumption we were having a rational discussion about this.

[/quote']

I quoted you but my reply was for all "PvE" types, sorry for the confusion. And it's not just this corner case. It's not uncommon for PvE'ers to want to punish the homicidal sniper killing everyone in Cherno somehow as well, even though he clearly is risking his skin/gear and is not spawn rushing. (somehow homicidal snipers are "unrealistic" in a zombie apocalypse, aka not how you want him to play) Thus the "holier than thou" bit. Case in point:

I just find most of the arguments in favor of being able to act like a psychopath (and that's what it is) are basing their argument on "that's how it would be in real life"' date=' when I think that is completely untrue.

How it is now is what happens when you let the average player do whatever he wants in a game with no consequences. People don't turn into murdering psychopaths just because they don't have beans and don't want to go look in a barn 2 minutes away. You know that food and stuff is all over the place, you're killing people because you are fucking lazy or just because you can and you know he is just going to respawn. Not because it's the end of the world.

Stop using the reality argument, because it doesn't apply, you're behavior in this game is based on you knowing it's a game.

[/quote']

I agree the "realism" argument is arguable, but bandits aren't under any obligation to fit into your roleplaying period. Do they have to actually be the type of person that would kill everyone in order to "roleplay" one in this game? Do they even have to treat this as reality at all or pretend it's NOT a videogame? This same argument comes up in every sandbox PvP game, I don't know why PvE'ers feel the need to play PvP games and bitch about it.

[i wub pugs 16]

It's really sad that we have to harp on grouping up.

Look guys, this isn't BF or COD, it isn't designed for singleplayer on any level.

ArmA is a terrible game unless you play with other people.

Day Z is the first mod to make any sort of Lone-Wolf play style viable, but it comes with a high chance of death. The more people you travel with the better off you are.

I can live for hours and hours and hours when I play with my guys, but when I'm all alone it's a crap shoot.

Why hasn't this sunk in yet?

Make some friends in game or bring friends from outside the game to the game!

[Sickerthansars 53]

I just find most of the arguments in favor of being able to act like a psychopath (and that's what it is) are basing their argument on "that's how it would be in real life"' date=' when I think that is completely untrue.

How it is now is what happens when you let the average player do whatever he wants in a game with no consequences. People don't turn into murdering psychopaths just because they don't have beans and don't want to go look in a barn 2 minutes away. You know that food and stuff is all over the place, you're killing people because you are fucking lazy or just because you can and you know he is just going to respawn. Not because it's the end of the world.

Stop using the reality argument, because it doesn't apply, you're behavior in this game is based on you knowing it's a game.

[/quote']

you're horribly naive and or just plain stupid if you honestly think in a post apocalypse world where all societies norms and laws are gone that people would be more interested in helping each other out than just looking out for themselves and their families and surviving by any means necessary.

We already are exploitative of each other in everything from relationships to business deals, we look for the "What can I get out of this that benefits me" side of things not the "How can we both benefit from this" side and that's with all our social norms etc intact.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

You're confusing player created consequences and GAME created consequences.

i think people trying to come up with solutions for bandits need to keep this in mind

bandit skin was good in a way since players made it a consequence (by shooting them on sight), whereas most other suggestions just directly punish the bandit

[callahan9119 7]

You're confusing player created consequences and GAME created consequences.

i think people trying to come up with solutions for bandits need to keep this in mind

bandit skin was good in a way since players made it a consequence (by shooting them on sight)' date=' whereas most other suggestions just directly punish the bandit

[/quote']

This.

[Cooper42 0]

Let's not punish anyone.

Let's just make it so that cooperating with strangers has some benifit.

At the moment, in purely gameplay terms, the choice between "shoot anyone and everyone you see straight away" and "try to work with strangers" is so very, very much in favour of shooting first that it leads to the current situation.

[callahan9119 7]

I just find most of the arguments in favor of being able to act like a psychopath (and that's what it is) are basing their argument on "that's how it would be in real life"' date=' when I think that is completely untrue.

How it is now is what happens when you let the average player do whatever he wants in a game with no consequences. People don't turn into murdering psychopaths just because they don't have beans and don't want to go look in a barn 2 minutes away. You know that food and stuff is all over the place, you're killing people because you are fucking lazy or just because you can and you know he is just going to respawn. Not because it's the end of the world.

Stop using the reality argument, because it doesn't apply, you're behavior in this game is based on you knowing it's a game.

[/quote']

you're horribly naive and or just plain stupid if you honestly think in a post apocalypse world where all societies norms and laws are gone that people would be more interested in helping each other out than just looking out for themselves and their families and surviving by any means necessary.

We already are exploitative of each other in everything from relationships to business deals, we look for the "What can I get out of this that benefits me" side of things not the "How can we both benefit from this" side and that's with all our social norms etc intact.

Ummm no. And you ignored my whole argument and focused on one sentence. You guys want to kill with impunity. You want no consequences for any of your actions. You know it's a game when you're playing and you will kill someone over the excuse of beans, when you know that shit is all over the place and there is no trouble finding food, unlike a real apocalypse. you will kill someone because you're lazy, or just because you felt like it.

That's not real life. You are arguing extremes, as if everybody turns into a murdering psycho because this happened. I say that is not the case. Some will, most won't.This game now benefits assholes and psychopaths and punishes altruism and even benevolent non-interference.

Bandit skins, while imperfect, were necessary for gameplay purposes. Yes the threshold should be higher and your counter should diminish over time. But they at least allowed PLAYERS to decide what to do with you. It let the community judge them...and most killed you guys because you're fucking assholes.