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

[Sgt.Spam 42]

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.

Ad hominem attack much?

Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion regarding ethics and morality' date=' humans do not have an innate desire to slaughter one another (most parts of history notwithstanding) as that is just not conducive to survival. On a basic level, yes we all want to protect our beans but we're social creatures that have to work together to survive (in all ways). It's only through the advent of technology is mankind allowed to be a "lone wolf" and survive. Our genes haven't caught up yet, so if Armageddon was suddenly upon us and the sky began to fall, we would still eventually work together and not go around shooting each other on sight.

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.

I think you're projecting here and making a blanket generalization.

Looking at the big picture, you can clearly see that being social and working as a group is what's allowed us to survive on planet earth for thousands of years.

[callahan9119 7]

Exactly.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

Let's not punish anyone.

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

At the moment' date=' 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.

[/quote']

right now if you are both solo there are a lot of benefits to grouping up

however if you already have your own group there reasons to work with that person start to diminish, unless your planning something large like taking over an area

is there a way to encourage everyone to work together even if they already have a group? and if so is it really something we want

[deweyhewson 1]

Spot on post, OP; the logic and rationality within it was a breath of fresh air.

I think what people need to remember is that DayZ is meant to simulate how the real world would deal with an apocalyptic scenario, and part of that reality is that people will kill, steal and betray each other if they think it'll keep them alive. Some will do it just for fun.

And some will avoid doing any of those things out of a loyalty to their sense of morality that they'd rather die than betray.

The fact that all those things exist within DayZ is what makes the game so fantastic, and, much as I hate being murdered, or fear bandits, I'd hate to see those elements removed from the game to cater to a base that is use to being able to regenerate health, and respawn at will.

If anything, the game should be even more difficult than it is now.

[Danger Boy 1]

EDIT: This is in response to some discussion a few posts back about the "Humanity" system and whether we should have a way of seeing how "good" or "bad" someone is.

I wouldn't mind something in the game to compensate for the real life "meeting someone random" circumstance. Saying that real life is the same as the game for this circumstance isn't true. Yes, in both cases you know nothing about the person, and perhaps, if the person is a psychopath, they may try and act normal (ignoring the crazies that will just go on random spree's and be extremely noticeable).

But the difference, is in real life, you have "body language", which the game cannot provide. I can't see a characters face/body and think "he looks pissed off" or "he looks injured/hungry so he'll probably be desperate".

The "humanity" mechanic, while not perfect, sort of mirrors this. If it was balance out, I think it would work (I'm fine with dropping the bandit/non-bandit skins). For example, if I come up to a random guy, and he has -1000 humanity, did he have a couple self-defense killings? Was he desperate a couple times? Who knows? So i'll have to be cautious, and decide based on that. Whereas if I come across a guy with +1000 then I know he's *likely* OK, and of course if I come across someone who is -50000 then I know they're bad news. If this flashed next to their player name (up close only) I would still have that split second decision to make.

It's not a perfect system, , but as long as it's afun mechanic, roughly mirroring the real world, then it's worth it.

Also, on the topic of "punishing good, no consequences for bad", I don't think that's the case. It's merely a case of "this is how it is.

Anyone ever seen the movie "Blindness"? The "bad guy" with the gun rules everyone, and other jerks band with him, and they get all the food/water, because they have the best weapon. The only way to take people like that down is to team up, just like in the game. You are forced to team up with others if you want to overcome the bandit with the good weapon. That's just the way things are, it's not particularly by design of the game, it's just what happens when you put everyone in a world with few resources and say "Go".

[callahan9119 7]

Spot on post' date=' OP; the logic and rationality within it was a breath of fresh air.

I think what people need to remember is that DayZ is meant to simulate how the real world would deal with an apocalyptic scenario, and part of that reality is that people will kill, steal and betray each other if they think it'll keep them alive. Some will do it just for fun.

And some will avoid doing any of those things out of a loyalty to their sense of morality that they'd rather die than betray.

The fact that all those things exist within DayZ is what makes the game so fantastic, and, much as I hate being murdered, or fear bandits, I'd hate to see those elements removed from the game to cater to a base that is use to being able to regenerate health, and respawn at will.

If anything, the game should be even more difficult than it is now.

[/quote']

I don't think anybody disagrees with being ABLE to do it, but they think there should be some societal consequences FOR doing it. You murder steal, rape etc then you should look like a murdering rapist. And then the players judge you. The game didn't punish you, the players did.

You guys just want to be able to do whatever you want and not have to pay for it. You can't use some tenuous "reality" argument and then say society shouldn't be able to judge your actions. We would. It's not reality, everyone looks exactly the same. It's a game, and for gameplay purposes you should look like a bandit if you are one.

[deweyhewson 1]

Spot on post' date=' OP; the logic and rationality within it was a breath of fresh air.

I think what people need to remember is that DayZ is meant to simulate how the real world would deal with an apocalyptic scenario, and part of that reality is that people will kill, steal and betray each other if they think it'll keep them alive. Some will do it just for fun.

And some will avoid doing any of those things out of a loyalty to their sense of morality that they'd rather die than betray.

The fact that all those things exist within DayZ is what makes the game so fantastic, and, much as I hate being murdered, or fear bandits, I'd hate to see those elements removed from the game to cater to a base that is use to being able to regenerate health, and respawn at will.

If anything, the game should be even more difficult than it is now.

[/quote']

I don't think anybody disagrees with being ABLE to do it, but they think there should be some societal consequences FOR doing it. You murder steal, rape etc then you should look like a murdering rapist. And then the players judge you. The game didn't punish you, the players did.

You guys just want to be able to do whatever you want and not have to pay for it. You can't use some tenuous "reality" argument and then say society shouldn't be able to judge your actions. We would. It's not reality, everyone looks exactly the same. It's a game, and for gameplay purposes you should look like a bandit if you are one.

I hear what you're saying, and I used to agree with it, but the problem is that isn't how it works in the real world. The reality is that you can't tell on sight the type of person someone is, their crimes, or their nature. You can tell little things about them, and over time probably pick up on some of those things, but it's certainly not going to happen from seeing them cross a road a hundred yards in front of you.

What I would like to see, instead, is real world communications based on players' actions. For example, last night I was part of a bandit group (but wasn't a bandit myself, and still haven't killed anyone) who took out two guys at the Balota airstrip. As we moved away, we saw people communicating through chat that a bandit group was around the airfield, to be careful; some even resolved to come hunting us.

It was very thrilling, and felt very organic.

So maybe there should be some method for people to leave information throughout the game. Like a note pasted outside a town, or on the ground, or paintings in blood on the side of barns naming known bandits, or something similar to those things. It would still be realistic, still be organic, and not compromise the gameplay.

If anything, I think it would add to it.

"You guys just want to be able to do whatever you want and not have to pay for it."

Absolutely not true. I have NEVER murdered someone in the game, and don't plan to ever start. I play a true survivalist, and I my mantra is that it's okay to shoot in defense, but better never to have to shoot at all.

But if bandits were nerfed in an unrealistic manner, it would remove a huge element of danger and realism from the game, and make my experience as a survivor LESS fun.

[deadbolt (DayZ) 10]

just remember you can still kill people every once and a while and still appear to be a survivor, and those that want to be a bandit can do so by killing all the time

[Sgt.Spam 42]

But the difference' date=' is in real life, you have "body language", which the game cannot provide. I can't see a characters face/body and think "he looks pissed off" or "he looks injured/hungry so he'll probably be desperate".

The "humanity" mechanic, while not perfect, sort of mirrors this.

[/quote']

This is one of the major disconnects with the game currently (yes, it's an alpha for a mod built on a war simulator) that will more than likely need to be addressed if Rocket wants players to have a complete sandbox. Without tools to allow players to quickly communicate (emotes, chat, VOIP) lines are crossed often (be it accidental, intentional or what have you) and players are shot.

:(

You guys just want to be able to do whatever you want and not have to pay for it. You can't use some tenuous "reality" argument and then say society shouldn't be able to judge your actions. We would. It's not reality' date=' everyone looks exactly the same. It's a game, and for gameplay purposes you should look like a bandit if you are one.

[/quote']

I think a balance should be struck between gameplay and Apocalypse simulator, really. Players should be given the proper tools to deal with the psychopathic behavior. Until that occurs, then players will continue to act like asshats.

So maybe there should be some method for people to leave information throughout the game. Like a note pasted outside a town' date=' or on the ground, or paintings in blood on the side of barns naming known bandits, or something similar to those things. It would still be realistic, still be organic, and not compromise the gameplay.

[/quote']

This is more to my point. Giving players the tools they need.

[septuscap 42]

right now if you are both solo there are a lot of benefits to grouping up

None that outweigh the lack of trust you'd have in the group. The odds of being shot in the back would make him more of a liability than an asset; I'd be better off solo. And in that case I'd be better off solo with his makarov mags + beans :D

however if you already have your own group there reasons to work with that person start to diminish' date=' unless your planning something large like taking over an area

is there a way to encourage everyone to work together even if they already have a group? and if so is it really something we want

[/quote']

This is the question everyone should be asking. There are no goals in the game that warrant the risk of not killing strangers, ESPECIALLY if you already have a group of your own. And I agree with the dissenters on that; there should definitely be more depth to player interaction (aside from your pre-made ventrilo group).

I know FRIENDLY players who still shoot on sight b/c (a) the risk is too high they'll be shot and (b) there's no reason NOT to aside from feeling like you're a good person in a videogame (which is generally not worth the risk of being shot in the back).

And I think there are implementations that wouldn't punish bandits. I think the biggest one is implementing networks of trust & fixing in-game voice (ie. on mouse-over at close distances, display names in color based on the trust rating given by players you trust, for example; maybe have a specific action like "gossip" to update your trust list with your buddies). It is just ridiculous that two friendly players have to shoot each other b/c they either suspect banditry or assume the other player will.

It's not "realistic" but neither is not recognizing a player standing right in front of you since we all have the same models/skins. And hopefully this'll help people start vilifying the PLAYER and not the PLAYSTYLE (which is actually really integral to the game experience).

[deweyhewson 1]

just remember you can still kill people every once and a while and still appear to be a survivor' date=' and those that want to be a bandit can do so by killing all the time

[/quote']

True, but this is much more difficult without knowing your karma level, however.

[Swi1ch 39]

I went offline yesterday and there's been four or five pages worth of posts since then. Damn.

There's no way I can (be bothered) to address all the posts, but I did notice that realism has started to crop up, and I as I deliberately left realism out of my OP, i'll address it now.

Whilst I have basically been arguing about the ambiguity of DayZ, I would say that the realism aspect is pretty cut and dry. DayZ is attempting to recreate a realistic scenario in which humans react differently. Humans need food, water, shelter/warmth etc. What the game is not governing, is how they do these things. As long as you stick within what is realistic to actually accomplish irl, you can do what you want. You can shoot people on sight, randomly and for no reason, or you can help everybody and be a super nice guy. You can't use a magic wand to turn someone into a frog.

Realism is such a vague word really, as pertaining to games, because everyone has their own interpretation of it. Arma2 is a realistic game, because if you use real world military tactics that have been proven to work irl, you're much more likely to survive.The realism aspect in DayZ is purely in respect to what you can and can't do irl. If we could know for sure that during a zombie apocalypse that 90% of people who not kill others, should be restrict player killing to 10% players in game, for the sake of realism? Of course not, because everyone responds differently, and that would actually be less realistic as you would be restricting players from doing what they actually would be able to do.

Again, first thing in morning and thus my structure is terrible and it needs editing, but hopefully the point comes across.

[raptorak 2]

I shot a man in Cherno, just to watch him die.

[xx-_=Sniüporrz_=-yyy 1]

When i first started the game i always wanted to play a good guy helping other people.

It was fun and rewarding but and the occasional "friendly" who shot me in the back - what ever. But now with the skins gone i just shoot everbody i encounter - why?

Cause lol why not? i just endanger myself if i just write something in chat so that the guy knows im near him. And its suddendly so much easier. There really is no law and now the game has become so much more realistic"11!!! I see why most kids here wanted the skins gone. For me every teamplay with strangers has completly stopped cause i have no visual who could determin him as a good guy at first glance. communicating is just such a pain in the ass to do. besides its nice stocking up on makarovammo. so now im a bandit - but wait, something like a bandit doesnt exist anymore. if i wanted good gear i just log in an nearly empty server near an airfield - rinse repeat like most guys. its quick and if i loose it, who cares, i can equip some good gear really fast again. to bad rocket fixed the altf4 feature, rigth guys? xD xD xD

tldr. for me the game has become much more fun, now that i treat it as a deathmatch rather than an rpg.

[dystopeon 46]

LoL, "anti-game" that's laughable, motherfucking game-devs thinking they Dada now :p. P.S. DADA SUCKED ASS / DESTROYED DECENT ART.

[Callow 1]

Most of the discussion seems to be heading in the right direction, i.e., not towards, "How do we mechanically penalize someone who snipes me," to, "How can I let people know player A has done this and change other players' reactions to them?" Not saying the point I'm going to make hasn't been made before, but I feel like I need to cast my vote to some degree.

I'll start with survival. Survival is apparently the end all to this game, or at least how a lot of people seem to talk about it. But the thing is, survival is not particularly difficult. I understand that surviving isn't just keeping your character's numbers and colors high enough, but the process of finding water sources, food and warmth, arguably the three most basic things you need to survive, is not overly complicated, and if you play intelligently it's very possible to simply live on and survive.

But for some players, including myself, that's not enough. I know I could pick a safe spot of the map to horde resources and count the hours that my character had lived, but I don't find satisfaction or entertainment in that. I don't see the point in exploring and surviving unless you do something with the experience and loot you get, and for me, that's PvP. Once I get kitted out with an M4, a good amount of ammo and food, then I'm going to go out and try to kill other players. Why?

Because in my mind, that's all there is left to do.

I've explored much of Chernarus because of being a long time ARMA 2 player and having played DayZ an additional amount. I have some interest in repairing a car for some lols, but I understand how quickly DayZ takeith away, so I'm not eager to spend twenty hours of work just to see my jeep get lit up. I can't make a house or area of town safe from zombies to make a shelter or permanent base, so what I'm left with is a set of experiences and tools to roam the map and engage in fights with other players.

I really want to see someone disagree with me and respond to this, because as I see it, this is what I'm left with. Once you've 'done' the survival bit, gotten some gear and food and you're not in the dire straits survival wise, what is there left to do? That's where I'm stuck at, because if I measure my success in-game to "survive," I've already beaten it.

[septuscap 42]

I really want to see someone disagree with me and respond to this' date=' because as I see it, this is what I'm left with. Once you've 'done' the survival bit, gotten some gear and food and you're not in the dire straits survival wise, what is there left to do? That's where I'm stuck at, because if I measure my success in-game to "survive," I've already beaten it.

[/quote']

I think you're right, this is a PvP game -- I think the opportunity we have (over deathmatch type games) is to give context to the PvP. You won't always be in a "fair" fight with opponents, one or both of you might not have even had PvP on your mind when you encountered each other (ie. supply runs, hiking to meet up with buddies, etc) But I think that just scratches the surface of sandbox PvP.

[instagoat 13]

DayZ is basically Stalker crossed with Robinson´s Requiem, except WAY less complex and realistic. Robinson`s Requiem was crazy. My first thought at reading the OP. Reading the rest of threaddd now.

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

DayZ is basically Stalker crossed with Robinson´s Requiem' date=' except WAY less complex and realistic. Robinson`s Requiem was crazy. My first thought at reading the OP. Reading the rest of threaddd now.

[/quote']

haha, I loved that game. Never got bored of amputating all my limbs and seeing how long I could survive as a stump person.. and that goddamn crow that would ALWAYS hack one of my eyes out.

[Nickprovs 53]

I don't know why but this thread made me think of this

[Reign19k 1]

I don't run around killing everyone I see because it's an idiotic thing to do if you are actually playing the game to do anything more than: Get weapon > kill players > die > repeat.

Eventually that playstyle will die out as players either realize that there are better games where that doesn't take as much time and effort to accomplish, or they get bored with it and try a different approach.

In my personal opinion anyone who chooses either extreme will not last long in this game.

The only difference is that the extremist that avoids pvp will be even more displeased by the loss of all the "time and effort". Circumstance should dictate your ROE in a world like this I think. If helping you at that time would help me survive in return, that's the most logical choice. If your presence puts my survival at risk then I will either remove myself from that situation or remove you... It's all dependent on how you enjoy playing the game in the end.

[number7 1]

Do any of you realise how boring the game would be without assholes who shoot at you?

I, for one, don't want to sit in the forest all day scavenging beans so i can increase my in-game life counter where the only reward at the end of it is more in-game beans.

Let people shoot other people all they want, so it gives me something interesting to contend with, an actual threat to survival!

[frankhertz 2]

Didn't read the whole thread but the picture on the front page that says kill is actually a survivor...

[Crooked 1]

Once you've 'done' the survival bit' date=' gotten some gear and food and you're not in the dire straits survival wise, what is there left to do? That's where I'm stuck at, because if I measure my success in-game to "survive," I've already beaten it.

[/quote']

Absolutely nailed it. My first few days I did the survivor thing, I spent a few terrified nights scouring the airfield until I ended up with impressive military grade hardware, a GPS, and I even fixed up a UAZ with a couple friends. Had to fight a few other survivors who wanted it, but we persevered and drove that little bastard all over the map. Then our driver got it stuck in a tree, the UAZ exploded, and we all died.

Tragedy. Loss. Heartbreak.

I told you we should have repaired the engine.

I continued trying the survival game, but it had lost a little of its luster. It's not fun to scour the map for .2% chance uber items over and over again while I wait for something to go bad and make it all go "poof." Not for me anyway. To each their own.

One day I found a CZ in a barn. What the hell. Why not give this a try?

My first shots were beyond terrible. I wasted close to 6 mags of ammo sitting in an abandoned town trying to get a sense for distance and bullet travel time. BUT IT PAID OFF: The sheer sense of calm satisfaction as I shot the bandit sniper in the nose from 300 meters away was...well it was nice. My second kill, this time against a moving target, did not go so well. It was messy. It took a whole clip. By the time I hightailed it out of my hiding spot half the players on the goddamn coast probably knew where I was.

I made some mistakes. I got killed. I lost all my toys again and again and had to start from scratch.

But I got better. Not great. Just better. I learned to pick battles in which I held the advantage. I spent time scouting cities and noting where people tended to gravitate toward. I began carrying a assortment of smoke grenades, flares, and chemlights and used them to scare people out of one area or attract them to another. I broke down wire fences blocking areas entirely and set up new ones that forced people to take an exposed path to get to their goal.

I don't bother to loot bodies because it simply isn't worth the risk it presents. If I notice someone has some military gear I'll let people in mumble know I can play babysitter and keep the vultures away provided they can get to the body in time. I do so through a scope; it's not going to be my nuts if his friends leap from the nearest building with guns blazing.

In short, I have created a new objective, and I throw all my resources into pursuing it as effectively as possible. My kill count is not obscene but I remember each and every one. The bandit I shot at the tip of the pier as I crouched atop a grain silo 500 or so meters away. The poor bastard I dropped on the roof of the hospital a half hour after his screaming meltdown in global voip over losing a weapon he allegedly worked weeks to acquire.

That's why I do it. Not because I think that's how it would really be in a (and I continue to laugh at every jackass that uses an equivalent of this line of bullshit) "REAL APOCALYPSE." I haven't the faintest idea how people would really act if shit went bad. Frankly, I don't even begin to give a fuck. I do it because with a bit of planning, patience, and a spot of dumb luck, I click a mouse and destroy what someone has spent hours and possibly days creating. It is the same petty and cruel force that causes young boys to kick over sandcastles. It is destruction for its own sake. It's gloriously satisfying.

And none of it would be possible without the people who invest themselves so heavily in their characters. What fun is killing a Makarov wielding kamikaze again and again? So by all means, kick out the "CoD crowd;" those of us that take enough pleasure in our work to put some effort into it will be rewarded with the simple knowledge that we killed someone who cared.

[Swi1ch 39]

I really want to see someone disagree with me and respond to this' date=' because as I see it, this is what I'm left with. Once you've 'done' the survival bit, gotten some gear and food and you're not in the dire straits survival wise, what is there left to do? That's where I'm stuck at, because if I measure my success in-game to "survive," I've already beaten it.

[/quote']

This...is probably the best and most succinct explanation i've seen in this thread, assuming the meaning is what It think it is. It basically points to a direction problem with the game, and not a bandit problem.