DayZ has become Deathmatch / Team Deathmatch

[Suicide Mouse 50]

We want it harder to "filter" these boring kids from the masses.

I am an elitist asshole and I admit it, but I just can't stand this generation of players and how they ruin every game they touch.

[LastShenanigan 8]

Only ever had to kill one person, only been killed a few times. I often talk to other survivors in chat. I've noticed it's always the guys who announce where they are and ask if anyone is looking to group up who die 2 minutes later... and again 2 minutes after that. Global chat disappearing will solve a lot of problems. Bandits will get bored of not know where everyone is. Sadly I'm worried that the same people who complain about being killed will then complain there is no way to group up. What will we demand then, a dungeon finder?

This mod is still evolving and while voicing your ideas on how to improve it is necessary, most people are coming on to the forums to say things like "COD gameplay". Simply asinine, either come up with a constructive way to improve what you don't like WITHOUT punishing any particular play style... or return to the singleplayer/co-op game of your preference. If you die in a particular spot, DON'T run back to that spot. Suggesting we FORCE everyone to play co-op because a few people can't avoid the city campers is crazy talk. I more often then anything, bump into another player who was scavenging the same little town as me. We both see each other, both people raise their guns. We slowly back away from each other. We either never see each other again, or talk about how close that was once we're both out of sight. This has even led to teaming up, which feels incredibly natural. Much more so then running around a major town yelling "FRIENDLY?!". The pkers have realized where the easiest places are to find the easiest targets. People need to realize this.

This is an ALPHA, most everyone who plays is aware of that. Most people are not going to try and hunker down and outlive the apocalypse. Eventually, an update will reset them and their items. This makes people much less interested in "playing the mod correctly". You can increase zombies to 4k per server, this could backfire on you and make players who aren't good scavengers even more desperate to kill someone. This is a VERY delicate subject, give them an inch and they could take a mile. If the people who can't figure out how avoid the murders now get their way and survive for 7 days at a time. They'll be all the more angry when someone kills them and takes everything they've collected over those past 7 days. At the end of the day everyone has their method of survival. If you're dying often, yours doesn't work.

[oktyabr 53]

There wouldn't be any "carebears" or "elitist assholes" or anything... IF this were *truly* a zombie apocalypse instead of some kind of fucked up zoo tour with guns. All that secondary bullshit goes away like flipping on the windshield washers in a cloud of locusts... You can see again. Who gives a fuck if player A killed five guys in the last minute on the beach... when you have a hundred zombies on your ass. You either team up or die alone, it's YOUR choice.

Fuck loads more zombies (rocket said 3000 should be possible) and NO where safe to go (that's zombies in the woods and on the roads for you guys that don't get it.) IS the answer.

[Butr0sButr0s 0]

I think the reason you see this behavior is that there aren't any rewards for teaming up. I don't think you should punish killing other players one bit, but you should offer some kind of incentive (other than the goodness of your heart) to let them live.

I'm not sure what kind of incentive would work the best, perhaps regenerating small amounts of blood (say 10 per 30 minutes) when in proximity to other players or something along those lines.

You also cant really extrapolate this to real life - teaming up in the event of an apocalypse would give you benefits you don't see in the game. Having someone to keep watch while you sleep (in dayZ we just log out), having someone to carry you if you are injured, or get supplies if you are sick, being an expert in different tasks like a mechanic vs doctor, etc - none of these things really fit the scope of the game so in my opinion they should add some other benefits to being teamed up.

[scarecrow119 1]

I have been playing for a few weeks now. At first i was pulled in utterly. I died a lot but each time i died i knew why i died. I grew very patient, methodical and careful because after a few deaths i learned gun running, even a little got you killed. I was careful who i was around and i was probably a little too trustworthy.

But now its just pointless. Everyone is just shoot! There's been a few times i have seen players and not opened fire. Only to be killed minutes later.

With no ramifications to your actions everyone just shoots. Why not?

In the last 2 days i have died over 20 times... With no consequences to your actions in terms of killing the game as become a shooter with zombies.

[ynefel 38]

I think the reason you see this behavior is that there aren't any rewards for teaming up. I don't think you should punish killing other players one bit' date=' but you should offer some kind of incentive (other than the goodness of your heart) to let them live.

I'm not sure what kind of incentive would work the best, perhaps regenerating small amounts of blood (say 10 per 30 minutes) when in proximity to other players or something along those lines.

You also cant really extrapolate this to real life - teaming up in the event of an apocalypse would give you benefits you don't see in the game. Having someone to keep watch while you sleep (in dayZ we just log out), having someone to carry you if you are injured, or get supplies if you are sick, being an expert in different tasks like a mechanic vs doctor, etc - none of these things really fit the scope of the game so in my opinion they should add some other benefits to being teamed up.

[/quote']

There's also benefits to travelling alone. I think changing mechanics in favour of teaming up is a bad idea. Some people want to play alone, others want to play together.

The pros/cons to both behaviours is already in game by default.

If you're together, you've got more than one set of eyes, extra resources, backup, someone to possibly pick up your shit and hold it for you if you die. It's also easier for other players to spot you or your friends and kill you, and more people is more chance someone can aggro a zombie.

If you're alone, you're harder to spot, you don't have to worry about what anyone else is doing - like having to back someone up or help them if they get into trouble. But, again, you're alone - if you get in trouble, no one will be there to help you.

It's fine as is. The issue with people killing left right and centre I don't believe has anything to do with solo/team mechanics whatsoever.

---

I have been playing for a few weeks now. At first i was pulled in utterly. I died a lot but each time i died i knew why i died. I grew very patient' date=' methodical and careful because after a few deaths i learned gun running, even a little got you killed. I was careful who i was around and i was probably a little too trustworthy.

But now its just pointless. Everyone is just shoot! There's been a few times i have seen players and not opened fire. Only to be killed minutes later.

With no ramifications to your actions everyone just shoots. Why not?

In the last 2 days i have died over 20 times... With no consequences to your actions in terms of killing the game as become a shooter with zombies.

[/quote']

If you've been playing for weeks, and you've died 20 times in the last 2 days, you must be in high-risk areas, or doing something wrong.

I've been playing for a couple of weeks, and I think the worst run I've had was 3 deaths in one day, and they were all my fault. I got greedy, or did something stupid.

[Calyps0 0]

What's with this whole "you have to kill others in order to survive" crap. How about getting in a group and surviving. strength in numbers. Just seems to me people are killing others because there are no major consequences. They really do need to up the zombie pop so that it encourages people to group. But this is still alpha so we will see how things go.

[ynefel 38]

What's with this whole "you have to kill others in order to survive" crap. How about getting in a group and surviving. strength in numbers. Just seems to me people are killing others because there are no major consequences. They really do need to up the zombie pop so that it encourages people to group. But this is still alpha so we will see how things go.

I think people should be able to freely choose to play alone or in a group. I agree that upping the zombie population and spawning them on roads, fields, wilderness - away from towns/buildings is THE best way to start balancing it.

[underscore 12]

Whilst I'm enjoying people quoting me' date=' did anyone actually read the rest of my post that followed that comment?

Context is a magnificent thing.

[/quote']

Yeah, I read it, but allow me to go through it again. I warn you, however, that you won't like it, because vivisections aren't pretty:

All these complaints usually come from people that are just bitching because 'it's too hard'' date=' etc. Also, most of the rampant killing occurs on the coast and in areas like Elektro and Cherno. What a surprise. Higher quantities of people fighting over limited supplies. No shit?

Here's the rundown:

If it's too hard for you, go play something else.

[/quote']

Nope, not too hard at all. It's not a question of difficulty, it's a question of gameplay. I want to play something more complicated and nuanced than KoS. I didn't come here for DM or TDM; got plenty of other games for that.

If not, try leaving the starting area. If you head inland, the rules are far different.

Really?

Although, heading to the NW Airfield is like approaching the wild west, so you still need to be wary. That's not people being assholes though, that's people who have taken a decent journey to get where they are, and also want to protect their loot.

I don't care what their motivations are, the effects are the same.

I spend most of my time up north,

So do I.

and I only play with 2 people I know in real life, and we communicate over Steam chat. Everyone else is kill on sight.

Oh, there you go. Thank you. You just admitted to exactly what I've been railing against. End of story right here, folks.

I'm not being a bastard, but why do I care what some random name on a server I'll never know or meet thinks of me? I'm not killing them to steal their loot, or make life hard - it's protecting what I've got, protecting my friends, and basically making sure I don't lose my shit, or have to do the ~45 min trip back up there.

Again, your motivations are irrelevant.

That's what this game is ALL about. Getting the weapons, the gear, the food, water, etc. I'm not playing to make friends with strangers.

Well, I guess we've gotten to the crux of the issue then, haven't we? I think I see where the other side is coming from. To them this game is simple: collect loot and then kill people with it. Ok, fair enough, but IMO this game could (and should) be so much more.

There's people that don't understand the game, are just noobs or even trolls who just want to start shit, but trust me. Leave the safety of the starting area, and you'll find it changes the further north you go.

No, it doesn't. You just admitted to killing everything on sight in the North as well. It doesn't change; still the same shit. Not that I need your confirmation, as being a Northerner myself, I already know this all too well.

Most of the retards in this game are all on the coast. Also, the further north you go, there's better gear, better weaps and a different experience.

Let me clarify, I don't think the in-game actions that either you or the Coastal PK'ers take are are retarded at all - ATM, it's in everybody's best interest to act the way they do. But, this playstyle is not some divinely pre-determined fact like a lot of guys are trying to make it out to be. No, ppl'st behaviour is simply a product of the current game mechanics and design. I don't blame the playas; I blame the game.

So far, this is the most incredible mod I've played pretty much to date, and has consumed my life for the past fortnight. I get whole heartedly sick of people trying to pin the blame on things for them not enjoying the game.

Pin the blame? Of course, we're going to pin the blame and ask for changes if we feel that the game is straying from its original design goals. And we're going to be particularly vocal if we think that a few changes can get things back onto the original track.

Man up, stop complaining, start venturing outside your comfort zone. If you're getting killed repeatedly, go somewhere else. It's not a difficult concept.

Nice try. "Man up," shriek the little boys. Truth is, it is you lot who are afraid to venture out of the comfort zone. C'mon, you're the guy who whines, "But, I don't want to deal with scary strangers". Man up, indeed.

And, no, the guys on my side of the argument aren't complaining because we're getting killed reapetedly. Let's get that straight, OK.

In the ~80 odd hours I've played in the last week or two, I've spent a grand total of maybe an hour in Cherno and Elektro. Too many idiots, or people who are still learning, either way, both types of people are dangerous.

Ditto, and please don't try to blame this on idiots or noobs.

Ok, in the end, I thank you for your contribution, as re-reading it made me realize where the heart of the disagreement lies.

[WalkerDown (DayZ) 296]

We need a 24 hours respawn: if you die you need to wait one whole day for another "life". It still so much far than having a single life (like in RL), but it would probably makes the situation better. First of all those CoD kids will go away.. because it's not the bandits that are ruining the game, it's about those brainless die-respawn-die-respawn chaps that are making it totally unrealistic.

[underscore 12]

Ynefel, just wanted to say that it seems like you're trying to have a discussion on this subject. I treated you like a common troll and flamed you pretty hard in my last post - I apologize. If you can look past the vitriol, I think we might be able to eventually get somewhere with this discussion.

[Butr0sButr0s 0]

We need a 24 hours respawn: if you die you need to wait one whole day for another "life". It still so much far than having a single life (like in RL)' date=' but it would probably makes the situation better. First of all those CoD kids will go away.. because it's not the bandits that are ruining the game, it's about those brainless die-respawn-die-respawn chaps that are making it totally unrealistic.

[/quote']

As a new player this would be really frustrating. I was killed at least 5 times the first day before I could even get the controls down. There's a lot of people waiting on the coast between towns that pick off new players for a quick supply of bullets/food. I'd hate to spawn in the game for the first time, be killed within 10 minutes, then have to wait 24 hours before I could play again.

[ynefel 38]

Ynefel' date=' just wanted to say that it seems like you're trying to have a discussion on this subject. I treated you like a common troll and flamed you pretty hard in my last post - I apologize. If you can look past the vitriol, I think we might be able to eventually get somewhere with this discussion.

[/quote']

I've been civil about it, as have you. I don't think my comments warranted such a lengthy 'vivisection' as you so tactfully put it. You've also made some colossal assumptions in your analysis as well, but I don't really care. You clearly disagree with me on many points, and that's your right.

At the end of the day, I'm concerned for the future of this mod, and that's pretty much it. I want to see it improve, not pander to the masses. (Which, by the way, I'm not implying it is, I just don't want it to start)

Regardless of people's motivations for killing/not killing I just pray this amazing mod project doesn't depreciate, for any reason.

So far, I think the zombie spawn mechanic is probably the most passive way to improve things at this point.

[underscore 12]

All that secondary bullshit goes away like flipping on the windshield washers in a cloud of locusts... You can see again. Who gives a fuck if player A killed five guys in the last minute on the beach... when you have a hundred zombies on your ass. You either team up or die alone' date=' it's YOUR choice.

[/quote']

Ah, now I see where you're coming from, Oktyabr. Thank you for the clarification. Damn, I think you're on to something with this simple, elegant (and deliciously cruel) solution. I would most definitely like to try this out and see what happens.

[rocket 16567]

There are some interesting points here, almost seems like a gestation of some kinds of ideas... I'll keep lurking and then put some feedback in on for discussion later. Keep going...!

[Talskar 0]

We need a 24 hours respawn: if you die you need to wait one whole day for another "life". It still so much far than having a single life (like in RL)' date=' but it would probably makes the situation better. First of all those CoD kids will go away.. because it's not the bandits that are ruining the game, it's about those brainless die-respawn-die-respawn chaps that are making it totally unrealistic.

[/quote']

As a new player this would be really frustrating. I was killed at least 5 times the first day before I could even get the controls down. There's a lot of people waiting on the coast between towns that pick off new players for a quick supply of bullets/food. I'd hate to spawn in the game for the first time, be killed within 10 minutes, then have to wait 24 hours before I could play again.

I certainly don't see how you make a better game by not letting people play your game.

[underscore 12]

We need a 24 hours respawn: if you die you need to wait one whole day for another "life". It still so much far than having a single life (like in RL)' date=' but it would probably makes the situation better. First of all those CoD kids will go away.. because it's not the bandits that are ruining the game, it's about those brainless die-respawn-die-respawn chaps that are making it totally unrealistic.

[/quote']

As a new player this would be really frustrating. I was killed at least 5 times the first day before I could even get the controls down. There's a lot of people waiting on the coast between towns that pick off new players for a quick supply of bullets/food. I'd hate to spawn in the game for the first time, be killed within 10 minutes, then have to wait 24 hours before I could play again.

Institute a grace period for new players?

[JohnnyDerp 4]

The non-black and white nature of DayZ is nice. I think trying to set labels and limitations on things would be overall detrimental. If someone wants to play it like CoD, that's perfectly fine. If instant gratification is really what you are here for, you either won't last long, or you won't go far from the coastal towns. If you want a little more depth, you'll get away from the coast, team up with people you know (ie: get on out of game voice coms with them), or be patient/careful and lonewolf it. People that complain about "deathmatch" aspects I think are those that just run in and attempt to get gear at the nearest, easiest place, or are naive enough to think that you're not getting baited by most in-game chat conversations. Nothing in this game is "risk free", and for me and a lot of people, that's the best part. Fastest way to get good gear(survive), is to kill someone with it. I'm far more scared of other people than I am zombies. The unknown human factor is what makes this game interesting. It's not a pve game nor glorified chatroom. It's pvp with zombies.

[logan23 118]

Placing a 24 hr re spawn lock would kill the game/mod.

You just need find away to make their behavior dangerous for them....Like this-

The Zombie Virus -connected to Humanity is Brutal but no more then other features in this game/mod- it's goal is to keep players from building 30 human kills. Let me just be clear that you would need to be attacked by a zombie to become a carrier of the Virus. This would be shown by an Icon like we see for Blood or Temp. If a player wants to kill players for fun they will lose Humanity and the Virus will become active. This would be like the Temperature number where it will start to go up or down towards the number value that would kill you/ turn you into a zombie. Ideally it would keep a spawn Zombie of you in the game. (There would be ways to stop the Virus and put it in Stasis)

By making it dangerous for them to collect scalps just as it's dangerous to Trust another Player- you maintain the Core of DayZ which is Fear of Lost.

Now a player who kills noobs for the fun of it has to worry about the virus killing them (if they were bitten-and if you went into a city and got hit by a zombie, you would become a carrier of the Virus but only low Humanity would trigger it/ but there would be other ways to trigger it but for this post I'm just talking about this). Now these for fun player killers will have to either find away to put it back in Stasis......this will lead to the player either getting frustrated ,since they can't kill player like in COD/death match games, and quit playing or change their behavior to a more Survival view. Just as a Survivor who would normally be friendly and group might end up shooting another player if they feel like the other person is about to back stab them,etc.

There is nothing wrong with PvP but when you have someone simply killing for body count and not even for gear or have player killing hunting partys that is where this type of player needs to feel the Fear the same way as the Survivor does or even the Bandit who kills based on events or due to survival.

Share in the Fear.

[pvtjohn 0]

I have to agree with underscore's vivisection in post #84. Ynefel's representation of his position in his post (and the views of many other PvP-centric players) is essentially, "you should get away from the coast, that stuff only happens in Cherno and Elektro." But, of course, Ynefel's post demonstrates that the incentive to simply kill and loot is much higher in the North. And he in fact states that is exactly what he does. This is not accusatory, it is simply what the game currently encourages. Ynefel is acting rationally given the game's architecture.

Someone else posted that, if this were real, we would have a tremendous incentive to team up. What if that person coming over the hill is a doctor? I'm a Cold War kid who has spent a LOT of time reading post-apoc novels. Do you know how incredibly valuable a doctor would be? Even a veterinarian or a nurse? How about a mechanic, or farmer who knew how to raise food? A woman, if you're a man (or vice versa)? Someone to watch while you slept? Point is, if realism is the goal, people should be VALUABLE.

In a zombie apocalypse, the zombies would be the enemy. If the game wants to create this scenario as realistically as possible, there should be some significant incentives for cooperation and some significant disincentives for killing and looting.

As to what those incentives should be, I am not quite sure. Obviously, the bandit skin was one attempt. I personally liked that approach. I think some positive incentives for co-operation would be good as well.

The way it is now, a rational person would simply head up from the coast a little ways, park themselves near to some spot people will likely stop at (say, a watering hole), then pop people in the head when they refill their canteens. I could do that easily. I could survive forever, and get lots of neat stuff. Is that a game that has staying power?

[oktyabr 53]

All that secondary bullshit goes away like flipping on the windshield washers in a cloud of locusts... You can see again. Who gives a fuck if player A killed five guys in the last minute on the beach... when you have a hundred zombies on your ass. You either team up or die alone' date=' it's YOUR choice.

[/quote']

Ah, now I see where you're coming from, Oktyabr. Thank you for the clarification. Damn, I think you're on to something with this simple, elegant (and deliciously cruel) solution. I would most definitely like to try this out and see what happens.

Thanks! I would most DEFINITELY like to see what happens!

Think about all the threads you've read (or try to imagine how many I've read) where whiners are going on an on and ON about tent that, M107 this, vehicle blah, bandit skin blech, "fuck! the guy I had alive for two weeks just died cause of ", etc. All of that, every bit of that, blows away like dust in the wind when a server has 2000+ zombies scattered *all over the map* and you are fucking lucky to even live a single hour, much less a single day or week. This isn't an MMO. Think arguments about sniping l33t tryhards at the NW airfield mean shit when they are the first to encounter wave after wave of zed wanting to eat their brains? The fact that so many players claim "fuck the coast, go north" says to me anyway that the rest of the map simply isn't tough enough.

Even that asshole that you *know* has a reputation for slaughtering the newly spawned on the beaches might be your best friend if you are holed up in an apartment building in Cherno with the whole rest of the population (zombies) wanting to come in. Player attitudes, even what's "important" enough to post here, changes drastically when the PVP component of this game is shoved in the back seat of the station wagon because the zombies are *finally* THAT fucking bad.

Here is a quote from my favorite post ever (see link below):

Fuck yeah' date=' that's what I want, I want to die in the first fifteen minutes from a zombie horde that makes my ass pucker or from a survivor in tattered cloths with a thousand-yard stare. Then I want to do it all over again.[/quote']

Note how he says "a survivor", not a TS3 enabled group of some clan trying to occupy some fucking air base.

Bring it.

[ynefel 38]

I have to agree with underscore's vivisection in post #84. Ynefel's representation of his position in his post (and the views of many other PvP-centric players) is essentially' date=' "you should get away from the coast, that stuff only happens in Cherno and Elektro." But, of course, Ynefel's post demonstrates that the incentive to simply kill and loot is much higher in the North. And he in fact states that is exactly what he does. This is not accusatory, it is simply what the game currently encourages. Ynefel is acting rationally given the game's architecture.

Someone else posted that, if this were real, we would have a tremendous incentive to team up. What if that person coming over the hill is a doctor? I'm a Cold War kid who has spent a LOT of time reading post-apoc novels. Do you know how incredibly valuable a doctor would be? Even a veterinarian or a nurse? How about a mechanic, or farmer who knew how to raise food? A woman, if you're a man (or vice versa)? Someone to watch while you slept? Point is, if realism is the goal, people should be VALUABLE.

In a zombie apocalypse, the zombies would be the enemy. If the game wants to create this scenario as realistically as possible, there should be some significant incentives for cooperation and some significant disincentives for killing and looting.

As to what those incentives should be, I am not quite sure. Obviously, the bandit skin was one attempt. I personally liked that approach. I think some positive incentives for co-operation would be good as well.

The way it is now, a rational person would simply head up from the coast a little ways, park themselves near to some spot people will likely stop at (say, a watering hole), then pop people in the head when they refill their canteens. I could do that easily. I could survive forever, and get lots of neat stuff. Is that a game that has staying power?

[/quote']

To clarify, 'heading north' doesn't necessarily mean going to the north of the map - NW Airfield, Vybor, etc. I simply meant, travel north, away from the hotspots (Cherno, Elektro, coast in general). Head to Mogilevka, Pusta, Zelenogorsk, etc. There's plenty of places that aren't the coastal hotspots, and also aren't the northern hotpsots and they have plenty of goodies available.

[Butr0sButr0s 0]

snip

We see eye to eye on just about everything you wrote. The only problem I had with the bandit skin was a) the potential for someone to get the skin by defending themselves from would be killers and b) the ability to slightly get around it by shooting players in the lets and letting zombies finish them off.

[griffinz 2816]

[xaphoo 1]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd like to add some input right now anyway.

Rocket, you mentioned Pasolini's Salo in another thread - how it revealed to you the great potential of an artwork-or-game which is morally punishing, which draws out one's feelings of disgust and fear and stretches them to the breaking point. I agree with you on this aim: this is what makes Day Z so striking, so terrifying and real an experience. It is cruel and dramatic in a way I have never seen in a game. The other day I bled to death in the doorway of a church, legs broken by zombies, while strangers laughed. This is great.

But the infiltration of deathmatch players detracts from this emotional intensity in every possible way. It is not their added danger that is a problem, not at all: rather, the deathmatchers' senseless logic inevitably makes deaths cheaper and more senseless, and lives cheaper too. It detracts from one's personal identification with the player, if they are forced to act with rote, boring violence towards every player they meet. Just as importantly, it weakens the illusion of a zombie apocalypse. Humans tend to cooperation as much as to violence, so I refuse to believe that everybody will be shooting each other if this scenario were to take place. Our state of nature is not aimlessly brutish, but tends towards societies which come out of necessity.

The reason that deathmatch appears to be taking over is because - to state the very obvious - this is a computer game. Death inherently carries less risks, so people will engage in risky and murderous behavior more often; there's also no real-life retaliation, complete anonymity, and so on. Also, players come into this with expectations on first-person games which revolve around shooting. So the balance is upset: with lower risks than real life, and gun-shooting already being the norm in first-person games, a cycle of murder emerges which leads to gradual "gamification". The verisimilitude and emotional harshness which you want, Rocket, is going away, because it's becoming a low-risk shooty-game.

I don't think this is irrevocable at all, however. All that the game really needs is to restore the balance to counteract the aggression-producing biases that video-games inherently have. Something is needed to encourage teamplay, to create factions or something, to restore the emotional attachment one has to the character. Of course, this should not be an "artificial" mechanic to "incentivize" a certain style of play, but something within the game-world itself.

So basically, I agree with the first poster.

(I've got one small idea here: have the respawn timer be by default very long, let's say twelve hours. For every in-game hour lived, the timer decreases one half hour, to zero if 24 in-game hours are lived [or the ratio can be 1:1 instead of 1:2]. This way new spawns won't rush to Cherno to fight and get killed, and old survivors will have a little bit of an extra incentive to live long)

**I should mention that deathmatch has not yet completely won. I've been killed three or four times and been shot at many more times, but I've been killed by zombies more than by players, and had more friendly interactions than unfriendly ones.**