Why we need MANY more zombies... and in the wilderness too

[aragos 1]

+rep. It's an opinion post' date=' and it's well written. You can disagree with it, but you can't prove it wrong.

Spawning is broken and can be exploited by both survivors and bandits. Only removing bandits/only rewarding survivors will not fix it.

[/quote']

^what he said. Well reasoned, thoughtful post. I don't do bandit, but don't have a problem with those that do. Big enough game for everyone.

Side note, as an old WW2 Online guy, you saw this stuff all the time--nerf the Brits, nerf the Germans, nerf this or that type of gear. Do it too much and you will imbalance a game and drive players away.

[Niblik 1]

P.S. Carebears is one of the dumbest terms I have ever heard in my life in relation to people having an opposing opinion and it should die just as much as this topic.

This.

I'm seeing the term used more and more in the Day Z forums. Guess what everyone' date=' its just another way of telling someone that you think they are a dick because they think differently than you do.

Game challenge can be like arguing about which type of mustard you like. If someone likes yellow over grey poupon that doesn't make them a loser, it means that they like a different flavor than you do.

At this rate the forums will end up like Eve Online forums... which hellped to drive me away from the game.

[hr']

snipped a bit for size

So please' date=' either think of ways to contribute to the universal player experience (equally accessible to bandits) that can also serve to strengthen the survivor cause against bandits, and you'll be some way towards presenting an idea actually attractive to the dev team.

Below are two examples of a fix. They are two different types of ideas to fix the same problem, both might be bad ideas, but one is thinking about the problem the correct way, and one is thinking about it the wrong way.

Correct example:

Make names permanent amongst all characters you create. In this way, reputation can naturally be dispersed across servers, and people will know to regard you in the way you act, as opposed to a vicious bandit being able to change his name and reinvent himself at the drop of a hat.

You see, this solidifies every players experiences. It effects both good and bad players with the natural moral outcome of their actions, without modifying the code to gimp on one play style.

Here is a bad example:

Name tags for survivors are hidden, but bandit name tags show up.

You see how artificial and arbitrary this is? It gives survivors superhuman sight powers that allow them to spot anyone with a deficient moral compass.

So please, take time to work out how to expand the game and not limit it. Additionally, if you're complaining about bandits, you're in a high traffic (read: dangerous) place. Get out of it.

[/quote']

This was an excellent post! Reasonable, respectful, and includes useful, helpful suggestions on how to make a positve change in the mod.

Nicely done sir.

[LondonHyena 7]

Didn't ask for the thread name to be changed >.>

[DaPessimist 1]

I'd like to see Wolves, Mountain Lions, and Bears in the woods.

[Kolchak (DayZ) 5]

The problem is most Bandits think Survivors just hate them and don't want them to be in the game. For most of us this is not the case. I like having Bandits, but at the moment since there's nothing to differentiate them from survivors, there's no reason not to be a bandit now. Being a bandit is safer than taking the risk to trust someone, and you can get a massive amount of resources in a small amount of time. Having more people around you means it's easier to be spotted, harder to sneak into towns, and less resources to go around. Why this is a problem is because like many others I was drawn to this mod through some of the more crazy stories of cooperation and survival I saw on several sites and youtube channels. Without cooperation the only stories are how you're lone wolfing it, how you killed someone, or how you got killed. Punishment on bandits are not necessary, however bonuses for being in a group or not killing someone are, and right now there are none, so it's not happening.

What I'd prefer to see is some differentiation for both styles of play. Things that make sense:

Survivor Side- If you've been traveling in a group helping your pals out you gain some resistance to panic when the zombies start swarming as long as your buddies are alive, but if you see one of your buddies go down, your panic goes through the roof and stays there as long as you can see the body. If you had to shoot a zombie over your friend's shoulder your aim should falter a bit, because the chance of hitting your friend causes you trepidation.

Bandit Side- If you've been shooting on sight and killing others you should actually be getting better at it, less opposed to taking a life, but becoming even more untrustworthy of them as well. The more you kill, the less noise you make to others, and the more amplified their movement sounds are to you. However, when staying close around others that don't kill, you become paranoid. Your panic meter slowly goes up for each non-bandit you're within 15 feet of and not aiming at, the more there are, the faster it goes up. Aiming at someone stops the panic from rising.

[tunedbeats 0]

I don't think there are manyt people who want to completely remove Bandits or PvP in general.

It's just that its tumbled overboard in the other direction that there is almost ONLY PvP aas far as player interaction goes which is a shame.

The game needs a good mix of both.