WHAT IF: Region's Zombie Spawn was linked to Humanity?

[Mallissin 7]

I like the idea and wish to contribute.

Things That Will GIVE Humanity To a Region:

• LARGE GAIN: Giving medical attention to another player. (to always help, or at least do no harm has been the cornerstone of medicine and society)
  
• MEDIUM GAIN: Dropping food and drink to the ground that another player consumes. (breaking bread and sharing food with others has culturally always been an indication of civility)
  
• SMALL GAIN: Fixing objects/vehicles (tool-making and realizing "the whole is more valuable that the sum of it's parts" is a human concept that gives us strength as a community unit)
  
• TINY GAIN: Killing Infected (ridding an area of the infected menace means a benefit to all)
  

Things That Will REMOVE Humanity From a Region:

• LARGE LOSS: Killing another player for any reason (bandit or not; taking the life of another human being will ALWAYS remove humanity)
  
• MEDIUM LOSS: Shooting at and wounding players (to do harm to others is to cause suffering, suffering drains humanity)
  
• SMALL LOSS: Vehicle and Object destruction (To take something useful, and destroy it goes agaist our ways of survival)
  
• TINY LOSS:Looting (although justified by resource scarcity, taking something that isnt yours from a body, or someone's residence is wrong.)
  

A few points to make sure to consider:

1. Humanity loss by murder damage (friendly fire) should be reversed by bloodpacks but not food, such that accidental events can be voided with cooperation and griefers don't intentionally hurt each other (and then heal each other) to increase the number of zombies in a region.

2. Environment damage should not be included in any humanity calculations, including healing or people can intentionally hurt themselves by falling and such then healing to reverse humanity loss in a region.

3. Loot quality and quantity should increase with zombie increase to give players incentive to go into dangerous regions.

4. Eating or making food in a region should decrease humanity (increase number of zombies), enough that eating a lot to regenerate health after a large amount of bloodloss is very risky. One can assume that Zombies are drawn to the smell of food. This will also drive people to cooperate with the use of bloodpacks.

[Mallissin 7]

OP, I don't like your suggestion for one main reason: if players are cooperating, the only challenge left for them is zombies. Working together already makes zombies less challenging. I do not think the game should amplify that with a mechanic like the one you propose.

I also have doubts that your proposed mechanic would enhance cooperation at all. Reducing the presence of zombies is not a goal many people will care about. Conversely, many people are already finding the game unchallenging even with present zombie levels. If anything, this mechanic would give those people a new incentive to decrease the humanity of a region in order to give themselves a new challenge/something to shoot.

I disagree with your assumption. I think the opposite will happen, I believe a system like proposed would create a sort of player "tide".

Imagine a major city is cleared by a group of players cooperating. The lack of zombies in the region would make PvP combat a lot easier, more profitable since their targets have just looted a city and more challenging since they most likely have worthwhile weapons. When this happens, the region becomes more dangerous again (from the PvP and such) and the zombies begin to return in a huge horde.

The friendlies would most likely go elsewhere when the tide turns against them and the cycle repeats itself elsewhere.

To make the process more obvious, maybe something built into the game notifies everyone on the server when big changes happen to a region. Perhaps an automated radio message or something.

[bbilbo1 149]

I like the general "activity" idea but why a "humanity" factor to turn it into a good deeds vs evil deeds mechanism?

That's an excelent question. I don't think it's as simple as "good vs. evil." It's more. It's about levels of humanity in comparison to what our threats are.

I, personally, believe that at the heart of pretty much every zombie/infected story (be it comics, tv shows, movies, games,etc) there's ALWAYS an underlying theme of humanity.

In each story, we have the basic antagonistst of zombies, which are people who have turned into mindless animals in human form that only consume and kill. And it's through desparate times where we must face difficult choices, civility breaks down between strangers, or even friends, and may ironically force us to become killers and animals ourselves. "Turning into the monsters" is, in this case, both literal and metaphorical at the same time, you know? in a world infested with mindless killers, its easy for people to degrade and become mindless, violent butes, ourselves.

So yes. In my system, there's actions that Add Humanity and Remove Humanity to the environment of the region. It's basically an observable metric that shows what players have done, for better or worse.

• In areas where Killing, suffering, and destruction happens, there's little difference (in terms of humanity) between players and the infected themselves. And the spawn reate reflects that.
  
• In areas where people have shown they are capable of doing great things, it's a very stark difference in spawn. But one that is always going to be easily broken by paranoia, greed, and violence.
  

So in a nutshell, this offers obsevable, objective, player-driven consequences to a pesistant world, and is also symbolic in a way that is true to the zombie theme. I hope this answered your question. :-)

[bbilbo1 149]

A few points to make sure to consider:1. Humanity loss by murder damage (friendly fire) should be reversed by bloodpacks but not food, such that accidental events can be voided with cooperation and griefers don't intentionally hurt each other (and then heal each other) to increase the number of zombies in a region.2. Environment damage should not be included in any humanity calculations, including healing or people can intentionally hurt themselves by falling and such then healing to reverse humanity loss in a region.3. Loot quality and quantity should increase with zombie increase to give players incentive to go into dangerous regions.4. Eating or making food in a region should decrease humanity (increase number of zombies), enough that eating a lot to regenerate health after a large amount of bloodloss is very risky. One can assume that Zombies are drawn to the smell of food. This will also drive people to cooperate with the use of bloodpacks.

Sure let's go over these points:

• 1. Humanity loss by murder damage (friendly fire) should be reversed by bloodpacks but not food, such that accidental events can be voided with cooperation and griefers don't intentionally hurt each other (and then heal each other) to increase the number of zombies in a region.
  
• 2. Environment damage should not be included in any humanity calculations, including healing or people can intentionally hurt themselves by falling and such then healing to reverse humanity loss in a region.
  

Both of these points are worth noting. However one of the main scenarios of this mod is "Scarcity of Resources." Meaning you can't just keep hurting and healing yourself all day because medical attention will always need medical supplies, and with only so much room for medical supplies, (supplies that will require constant scavenging, and interaction with other potential players) this particular exploit/strategy doesn't seem practical at all.

• 3. Loot quality and quantity should increase with zombie increase to give players incentive to go into dangerous regions.
  

That idea doesnt really sit well with me to be honest. At that point, it's starting to become a simple balancing mechanic that feels too "gamey" and out of place for this mod. And seems subject to exploitation and meta-gaming. Keep the loot at the same rate regardless of humanity, and let players continue to do what they wish. The environment will simply reflect that.

• 4. Eating or making food in a region should decrease humanity (increase number of zombies), enough that eating a lot to regenerate health after a large amount of bloodloss is very risky. One can assume that Zombies are drawn to the smell of food. This will also drive people to cooperate with the use of bloodpacks.
  

Again, this just seems like balancing for balance sake. Also, the concept of sharing and breaking bread with friends or even strangers you might not even know is a BIG thing in any culture and civilization. From inviting the boss over for dinner, to going out on a date, or even welcoming a new visitor from a far off land, sharing food is a very important aspect of social and human interaction.I appreciate and welcome the comment though. Thanks!

Edited August 3, 2012 by bbilbo1

[Zetal 90]

I think that eating your own food should not increase humanity, but sharing it is something that is "Out of the way" for most players, and more logical to increasing humanity. I'm not sure how hard that would be to track, though.

[TheStoryteller01 12]

So in a nutshell, this offers obsevable, objective, player-driven consequences to a pesistant world, and is also symbolic in a way that is true to the zombie theme.

Your humanity model is well thought out, but it is not fitted for an FPS game imo.

This humanity mechanism makes individual deeds change local variables without a proper logical chain of player action --> environment reaction. It is more of an abstract, global model that has often been used in strategic games or sims. For Zombie Pandemic p.e. your system would work perfectly.

Call me nitpicking or narrow-minded but for me to work in an FPS, any influence on the environment (including zombie spawns p.e) has to be directly and logically related to player actions without evaluating any humanity or moral factor.

Example: If player corpses attract the infected to an area they don't care how the players died and they shouldn't be made just to make a game mechanic work.

[bbilbo1 149]

Your humanity model is well thought out, but it is not fitted for an FPS game imo.

This humanity mechanism makes individual deeds change local variables without a proper logical chain of player action --> environment reaction. It is more of an abstract, global model that has often been used in strategic games or sims.

I would argue that this is easily more than just an FPS.

It is a Sim, and there's further room to argue that it can have strategy elements, seeing as this is a mod for a Military Simulator.

[bbilbo1 149]

... sharing [food] is something that is "Out of the way" for most players, and more logical to increasing humanity. I'm not sure how hard that would be to track, though.

It really comes down to whether or not the game recognizes "Player A drops food to ground; Player B eats food that was dropped by Player A"

[Tatatito 14]

I like the idea a lot, but is it really for DayZ?

I mean.. looting = bad humanity it just does not make sense.

If you've been shot, you get away and are bleeding out and come across a player corpse killed by zombies and he has exactly what you need to survive does that really have to become a bad deed?

That is just an example though, and like I said - I LIKE the idea i just really dont think its for DayZ which is a hard realistic (..bar the crazed infected/zeds..) fps survival game and it just seems a bit too 'fantasy' in my opinion.

[bbilbo1 149]

I like the idea a lot, but is it really for DayZ?

I mean.. looting = bad humanity it just does not make sense.

If you've been shot, you get away and are bleeding out and come across a player corpse killed by zombies and he has exactly what you need to survive does that really have to become a bad deed?

It really makes perfect sense. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is and always has been classically seen as "wrong."

Although looting in this post-apocalyptic world is completely justified and expected, we cant ignore that the act of stealing is still stealing.

Besides, looting is measured as a TINY LOSS, an act that in of itself wont be considered a huge detriment to humanity of a region overall.

Edited August 3, 2012 by bbilbo1

[TheStoryteller01 12]

I would argue that this is easily more than just an FPS.

It is a Sim, and there's further room to argue that it can have strategy elements, seeing as this is a mod for a Military Simulator.

I really like the general idea of yours but I don't see it fitting into dayz in its current state, as much as you wish it to be otherwise. There are certain elements in a game that decide, to which category it belongs and the game industry as well as game related media have well-established categorizations. P.e. STALKER is recognized as a shooter with RPG elements, SPELLFORCE is the archetype of a strategy/RPG breed, and dayz mod it is a perfect example for a sandbox shooter (be it 1st or 3rd person) - but it lacks all characteristics of a strategy game or a sim (look it up at wikipedia or browse your steam shop for categories).

As much as mechanics like a humanity factor might change this, in its current state technically dayz is just a sandbox shooter. It is designed as one, marketed as one, appreciated as one and will stay one.

Nonetheless I would LOVE to see mechanisms installed, that reward player cooperation - at least as an alternative play mode to the current free-for-all.

Personally I wish you would show a little more openness to adapt - or at least discuss - your concept according to feedback instead of defending every detail with arguments that start to border ignorance and stubbornness. Originally I thought you were posting this for feedback, but I get more and more under the impression that you are only trying to "sell" your idea with the persistance of a used-cars salesman.

Edited August 3, 2012 by TheStoryteller01

[LastShenanigan 8]

OP, I don't like your suggestion for one main reason: if players are cooperating, the only challenge left for them is zombies. Working together already makes zombies less challenging. I do not think the game should amplify that with a mechanic like the one you propose.

I also have doubts that your proposed mechanic would enhance cooperation at all. Reducing the presence of zombies is not a goal many people will care about. Conversely, many people are already finding the game unchallenging even with present zombie levels. If anything, this mechanic would give those people a new incentive to decrease the humanity of a region in order to give themselves a new challenge/something to shoot.

You'd have a good point IF the current difficulty remained. If something like this were implimented then the base difficultly should be increased. Areas where players set up to help each other would draw more friendly players because chances of survival there would be greater. On the flop side it would also draw bandits to the survivors who have been living there helping each other. With the right system in place you could see survival players migrating from location to location based on what the new "safe spot" is. Eventually it'd get too populated and too well known. Bandits would be drawn to the area by the less difficult zombies and the well supplied survivors. Eventually the scale would tip and the area would become too difficult to survive in. Safe haven falls, cycle begins anew. This may take some time to get right but I bet it'd be more enjoyable then the "hide in the woods" or "shoot noobs" end game we currently have.

[Tatatito 14]

It really makes perfect sense. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is and always has been classically seen as "wrong."

Although looting in this post-apocalyptic world is completely justified and expected, we cant ignore that the act of stealing is still stealing.

Besides, looting is measured as a TINY LOSS, an act that in of itself wont be considered a huge detriment to humanity of a region overall.

Sure, stealing is wrong because in society its not helpful for the greater good of us to steal from one another, but not because theres an ultimate judge (creating more zeds) but because it makes living together near impossibru.

I just really dont like having looting corpses dictate the hostillity of an area what so ever, even killing other people shouldnt either, unless their corpse turns into a Zed..

It would work in a more fantasy type game but really not with DayZ.

[bbilbo1 149]

but it lacks all characteristics of a strategy game or a sim (look it up at wikipedia or browse your steam shop for categories).

As much as mechanics like a humanity factor might change this, in its current state technically dayz is just a sandbox shooter. It is designed as one, marketed as one, appreciated as one and will stay one.

Nonetheless I would LOVE to see mechanisms installed, that reward player cooperation - at least as an alternative play mode to the current free-for-all.

Personally I wish you would show a little more openness to adapt - or at least discuss - your concept according to feedback instead of defending every detail with arguments that start to border ignorance and stubbornness. Originally I thought you were posting this for feedback, but I get more and more under the impression that you are only trying to "sell" your idea with the persistance of a used-cars salesman.

I do appreciate the feedback. Honestly I do. But, I also feel like there's nothing wrong with defending my proposal from criticism if it's warranted.

I think it's a bit short-sighted to say this mod is just a plain old FPS with no other elements.

Look at all the keybindings

Look at the ways players move

Look at how accuracy and bullets work

Look at status conditions such as blood-loss, shock, broken bones, hunger, thirst, infection, exposure.

Look at inventory management.

This game is a SIM. And the weapon system and combat potential also can be categorized as a Tactical Sim. If players don't choose to recognize this, and instead mindlessly spray and pray at each other, that doesn't make the game less-so.

[indominator 95]

well, imagine you stranded in the sea with two more people, only one bottle of water, what do you do?

in situations like this is that normal moral form society cannot be put into rule, its a natural order to eat or be eaten so only the strong can survive in nature, but in a society with controled violence we can subjugate all citizens so that all, even the weak can survive.

thats why u will end up with no humanity at all, i would even go with canibalism if it was implemented in the game, meaning that only the less humane players would survive, especially groups would, so each region would have few zombies and in the end, you would make people be inhumane just to avoid zombies

also, which moral and political view are you aligned to? moral should be related to each individual POV, not a bullshit know all, total good crap that imposes itself as right.

Edited August 3, 2012 by indominator

[bbilbo1 149]

I just really dont like having looting corpses dictate the hostillity of an area what so ever, even killing other people shouldnt either, unless their corpse turns into a Zed..

And ultimately that's what I'm proposing, i guess.

That a region's humanity is linked to zombie spawn. Lots of folks seem to feel that this would finally add the "dynamic, player-driven world" this mod is shooting for. I'll also quote a side-note I made earlier in this topic:

This is a system that provides objective consequences to player interaction in a game where otherwise there would be none. And in a situation where death just means respawning without gear, maybe a lingering impact on the environment is just the tweak and feature that this mod could benefit from.

[bbilbo1 149]

thats why u will end up with no humanity at all, i would even go with canibalism if it was implemented in the game, meaning that only the less humane players would survive, especially groups would, so each region would have few zombies and in the end, you would make people be inhumane just to avoid zombies

And mindlessly killing on sight and cannibalism would ultimately make players no different than the infected/zombies. At this point you're trading NPC zombies for PC zombies. A focus and point worth discussing, but please, not in this topic.

[Tatatito 14]

Sure, I totally get that!

Have that -1 player +1 to a zombie count.. But forever? Just that server alone or all servers?

If not it could be a constant griefing affair to troll servers into submission with zombie overload and then leave.

Feels almost too forced into 'being good' almost, and the beauty of DayZ (and at times its downfall) is that lack of authority and freedom to do what you want.

[bbilbo1 149]

Sure, I totally get that!

Have that -1 player +1 to a zombie count.. But forever? Just that server alone or all servers?

If not it could be a constant griefing affair to troll servers into submission with zombie overload and then leave.

Feels almost too forced into 'being good' almost, and the beauty of DayZ (and at times its downfall) is that lack of authority and freedom to do what you want.

I honestly don't feel that this proposal is "forcing" any type of gameplay, nor do I think that any freedom of play-style is being threatened. My system only enhances the world based on the already existing freedom players have in this mod.

But I really would like to hear more from you, here. If you don't mind humoring me and doing a bit more typing, would you mind explaining your greifing scenario?

How, in the system I'm proposing, do you grief? Please be detailed so I understand. Show me how my system is playing out in the long-run and what you would do to exploit and grief it.

Edited August 3, 2012 by bbilbo1

[Tatatito 14]

Well, the world (or in this case internetz) its full of dicks.

Individual dicks, groups of dicks, anonymous dicks etc etc..

If you get a group of dicks who like to grief together (which is certainly NOT un heard of) and go on to a server full of regulars and go to all major areas and murder, loot and such just to lower the humanity and leave to do it on another server, ruining it for everyone else 'just for the lolz'.

A player can kill another player, sure. But that player who got shot was either hacked or to put it simply - not cautious enough, whether or not the killing was unfair or not. But a group of people can ruin an entire region/server for all other potential players, noobies, regulars or vets for however long / untill they regulate the humanity back to a playable level..

Please let me know if I've missed a solution to this, though.

[bbilbo1 149]

Well, the world (or in this case internetz) its full of dicks.

Individual dicks, groups of dicks, anonymous dicks etc etc..

If you get a group of dicks who like to grief together (which is certainly NOT un heard of) and go on to a server full of regulars and go to all major areas and murder, loot and such just to lower the humanity and leave to do it on another server, ruining it for everyone else 'just for the lolz'.

A player can kill another player, sure. But that player who got shot was either hacked or to put it simply - not cautious enough, whether or not the killing was unfair or not. But a group of people can ruin an entire region/server for all other potential players, noobies, regulars or vets for however long / untill they regulate the humanity back to a playable level..

Please let me know if I've missed a solution to this, though.

Okay. NOW I understand what you're talking about.

First of all, we can't base gameplay systems around hackers. That's an overall security issue, not a game one.

Secondly, one detail I think you missed is that my proposal logs each individual region of the map with specific humanity ranks. And honestly, this map is pretty huge and full of different regions. And it sounds like you're proposing that griefers will comb every inch of field, forest, farm,town,city and building, until they've swamped every square meter of map with zombies.

On every server....

Even in the worst-case scenario where no one fought back, that's super impractical, improbable, and the griefers would get bored after the first few cities, and towns. Also, there will always be a MINIMUM and MAXIMUM rate of spawn of infected. There will never be zero, and there will never be over a certain capped spawnrate.

A raiding party of bandits who ride into an area, intending to kill, loot, or generally commit acts of chaos, is a completely acceptable scenario for this mod. Besides, dicks are going to be dicks on any game with heavy PvP elements. I'm not trying to fix or alter human nature. Just enhance the player's already-existing freedom and experience.

Edited August 3, 2012 by bbilbo1

[TheStoryteller01 12]

I do appreciate the feedback. Honestly I do. But, I also feel like there's nothing wrong with defending my proposal from criticism if it's warranted.

I think it's a bit short-sighted to say this mod is just a plain old FPS with no other elements.

Look at all the keybindings

Look at the ways players move

Look at how accuracy and bullets work

Look at status conditions such as blood-loss, shock, broken bones, hunger, thirst, infection, exposure.

Look at inventory management.

This game is a SIM. And the weapon system and combat potential also can be categorized as a Tactical Sim. If players don't choose to recognize this, and instead mindlessly spray and pray at each other, that doesn't make the game less-so.

STALKER: Call of Prypiat has all the above PLUS

- player suffering from radiation, fire or psi-force

- player fatigues from running and jumping

- player has to rest or use energy drinks (short time solution only)

- economy system

- factions the player can join, ignore or fight

- weapons & clothing/armor have to be repaired and can be upgraded

So under your categorization, STALKER is more of a sim than dayz will EVER be. Yet everybody regards STALKER as a shooter, RPG, survivial game or something in between - no one would ever call it a strategy game or a (tactical) sim

Your witness.

Edited August 3, 2012 by TheStoryteller01

[Tatatito 14]

Okay. NOW I understand what you're talking about.

First of all, we can't base gameplay systems around hackers. That's an overall security issue, not a game one.

Secondly, one detail I think you missed is that my proposal logs each individual region of the map with specific humanity ranks. And honestly, this map is pretty huge and full of different regions. And it sounds like you're proposing that griefers will comb every inch of field, forest, farm,town,city and building, until they've swamped every square meter of map with zombies.

On every server....

Even in the worst-case scenario where no one fought back, that's super impractical, improbable, and the griefers would get bored after the first few cities, and towns. Also, there will always be a MINIMUM and MAXIMUM rate of spawn of infected. There will never be zero, and there will never be over a certain capped spawnrate.

Besides, dicks are going to be dicks on any game with heavy PvP elements. I'm not trying to fix or alter human nature. Just enhance the player's already-existing freedom and experience.

Sorry,

I wasnt presenting the possibility that greifers will cover the entire map with low humanity zeds, just certain areas with the best loot or whatever. But again its not my main point as to why I dont think this mechanic would be good for DayZ.

The only way to really tell is to play test it, but seems quite far fetched for something that could either improve or completely ruin the experience of DayZ.

Its a great idea, I dont have the best gut feeling it would work well, but that really is all I have to debate on the matter!

[rolfwar 5]

you got my beans!

Maybe we could also add the possibility to create Clans like "Cherno's Clan" "Elektro's Clan" for each region and create short and simple quests for the clan (Join the look-out post on the x building of Cherno,prevent any unauthorized stranger from getting into the city/region, guard the X side of Cherno,walk in the streets and kill X zombies to keep the zone 'human' and so on)

Edited August 3, 2012 by rolfwar

[xximrtwoixx 104]

Here are some issues I thought of looking at OP's Idea,

Elements of the game world can not persist in an area without players being around it puts to much strain on servers and increases lag for everyone and would also limit your ability to add other cool features that could be using that computing power. Also tracking all of these interactions to the client and to regions would also use up alot of resources that I think would be better utilized in other ways.

If realtime was not used but rather a counting system for a region you run into issues like bandit skins did, over time any areas with loot spawns will become "hostile" areas that have a high number of Z's simply because people go there for gear. Also this is where conflict over gear would occur therefore increasing the hostility of the area even more. Even "friendly" areas would suffer from this I think if things worked as you intended, more friendly players use friendly zones as bases of operation. If things still spawned in these areas the sheer number of people that would be in them looting could possibly overcome the "friendly" actions.

Immersion Issue: What would happen if a large group locked down a key area like NW airfield they could be a "Bandit" group but simply use the elements available in your suggestion to spam the area into a friendly zone. I do think taking over an area should be incorporated, but if after you do so and then defend your area from another player I'm not sure that it should then bring back all of the Z's you worked so hard to eliminate.

I think that skills and specialization are a better option to discourage KOS, and that "Switches" within small areas that push out Z spawns/Stop them and loot spawns would work better for clearing areas.