DayZ has become Deathmatch / Team Deathmatch

[Sveglia 2]

This is exactly what I am talking about when players talk about "carebear." It is nonsense to try and curtail PvP by having zombies aggro PvP'ers.

Wanting to have more zombie aggro at you if you're involved in a loud shootout... in a zombie mod...

Yeah, classical carebear...

So in other words, you don't need the zombies at all, or are you too afraid of them? for me that sounds like a carebear to be honest.

[Slyguy65 499]

Definition: an insult' date=' the term applies less to players who merely prefer PVE to PVP and more to individuals who question the basic legitimacy of PVP or who greatly overreact to their avatars' deaths.

As used in DayZ: Someone who likes anything that isn't total bandit griefing (not PvP, many PvP players hate griefing and are labelled carebears for it.)

[/quote']

People definitely overuse the term, but if you come to a PvP game

The game is meant to be ambiguous. Not a straight up survival or PVP experience. I wish people understood that but than again most gamers are one dimensional to ask them to view a shooting game as something other than a shooter...well some people just say NOPE its a shooter so i will shoot people and only that. With the popularity growing the majority will soon be under the category of "most gamers"

[Virfortis 111]

Definition: an insult' date=' the term applies less to players who merely prefer PVE to PVP and more to individuals who question the basic legitimacy of PVP or who greatly overreact to their avatars' deaths.

As used in DayZ: Someone who likes anything that isn't total bandit griefing (not PvP, many PvP players hate griefing and are labelled carebears for it.)

[/quote']

People definitely overuse the term, but if you come to a PvP game and then complain that there's too much PvP, that pretty much falls right in there with the definition.

I don't think I've seen any flaming on people who want cooperative objectives in the game IN ADDITION to the PvP that already exists -- maybe implement holstered weapons and have a clan try and maintain a post-apocalyptic city where your weapon must be holstered, letting you trade with other players and what not.

I throw a suggestion a while ago' date=' not condemning at all the PvP, not punishing "bandits", not rewarding "survivors", I just suggest more aggro from zeds everytime some PvP took place, aggro for everyone, no matter if you're the "good" guy or the "bad" guy.

The idea was making the zombies something more to take care of... and they called me carebear just for that, the word lost his meaning already, as now is just a troll kid word, or something you say to someone who doesn't think like you.

[/quote']

This is exactly what I am talking about when players talk about "carebear." It is nonsense to try and curtail PvP by having zombies aggro PvP'ers.

Here's the problem. There are only two ways to achieve a goal: Consent or force.

Let me try putting it this way and seeing if it sticks:

Obviously, we have a problem. That problem is players treating DayZ like another free-for-all deathmatch mod just to have fun killing "noobs" and fragging the coastline. I think we can all agree on this: DayZ is not about making the multiplayer version of STALKER. If anything, it's trying to capture the singleplayer aspect of it, that is clans forming together and survivors toughening it up or dying.

The problem is that it's relying on player consent to make the NPCs, the Duty/Freedom, the STALKER/Scientists, etc. When players have been so indoctrinated by other games to simply "shoot the bad guy" that it curtails the social aspect that DayZ is trying to mimic. ArmA2 has never been about socializing, nor have other games in the "realistic" (and I always chuckle when they use that word) world of Battlefield and CoD.

So, what's to be done? If consent doesn't work, there is obviously force correct? Sure, we could implement arbitrary mechanics that slap players for killing and endorses surviving, but then it kills the freedom that is DayZ, gives it objectives, and places the player on a rail of achievements and objectives. In other words, it ceases to be a sandbox.

Either way, it doesn't look good, but there IS a third option: peer pressure. What works for bullies and social stigmas works for survivors and stalkers. If those with the power do not tolerate those that abuse it, the general consensus of the collective shifts. So, what am I saying?

If you're a clan, and you don't like mass PKing, get the power and stop it. If you're a survivor and don't like it, sign up for this "police" clan. You have the power, YOU can make it happen, you just need to go get it. I am already seeing this happening now, just look at the different areas for survivors/bandits. Patrol the beach, take in survivors and shoot bandits. If you move in a large enough force, soon nobody will bother you. Word gets around, I mean look at HA...nobody goes north in SLC1 and expects to survive.

Sorry for the wall of text, hopefully I threw something there that stuck, hoping to refine this statement over time.

[lodestar 3]

Well... I've been playing Arma 2 for a few years but I've played DayZ for only a few days. I haven't seen how it used to work before and I got the bandit skin thing a few days before it was removed, yet I think the game mechanics works nicely now, despite all claims that it became a DM.

I personally love how the mod is working so far, letting players decide the morality rules in it, because that's what the game is ultimately meant for. To introduce artificial rules in it will make it unrealistic, and so far DayZ is the most realistic game I've seen regarding this human aspect.

If people are killing each other, then you just have to be extra, extra careful and not put yourself in a position you might get killed. That has to be part of the game too, and it's what makes it great. If you want a second chance, or if you want the right to commit mistakes, there are plenty of games like that.

After I learnt enough of the game I haven't been killed by other players a single time. I'm extra careful, and I love playing it like that, because it feels real. I do play solo most of the time, but just because I don't trust other players to tag along and do something stupid. That's also part of the game and I love it.

One of the best moments I had in the game so far was recently when I was looking for some supplies in a supermarket. I was picking up some stuff in a rush and by mistake left the front door open and my back turned to it. Someone else rushed in, I dropped to the floor immediately, and they too, behind a stand. My heart raced, their too, and it was awesome, for a game. I never seen that kind of tension arising in any game. Actually, I've not seen it in any medium.

When I started telling them to not shoot, another guy came in and I thought, F***, but not for a second I was angry with the game rules. I realized it was my mistake. I rushed to the next room and they didn't shoot. We announced each other on the chat, I said I would go back there walking with my gun down, and we worked it out. They could have shot me, and maybe I was lucky and someone else would, but this kind of good faith pays in the long term. I could have just run to the back door, or tossed a grenade I had and it would be just like DM, but we worked it out as human beings and ended up helping each other for a while.

That kind of thing happens in game, and it doesn't have to be explicitly enforced by game mechanics or rules. Sure, it would be nice to have more stuff that needs cooperation, new content, but not new rules.

So far I've only seen this mad-max pvp people keep talking about in the big cities, and I just stay far away from them as much as I can. If the objective is to survive, that's the smartest thing to do.

[logan66 3]

It is starting to sound like today's American political campaigns in here.

I wish there was an easy way to filter out all the name calling, label and dismiss, and "if you don't like it leave" posts from this thread. It would likely reduce the length from 28 pages to about 12. That would certainly make it easier to keep track of the actual ideas and/or debate.

[aliensinmybrain 1]

^^ Cheers to that

[septuscap 42]

Here's the problem. There are only two ways to achieve a goal: Consent or force.

Let me try putting it this way and seeing if it sticks:

Obviously' date=' we have a problem. That problem is players treating DayZ like another free-for-all deathmatch mod just to have fun killing "noobs" and fragging the coastline. I think we can all agree on this: DayZ is not about making the multiplayer version of STALKER. If anything, it's trying to capture the singleplayer aspect of it, that is clans forming together and survivors toughening it up or dying.

The problem is that it's relying on player consent to make the NPCs, the Duty/Freedom, the STALKER/Scientists, etc. When players have been so indoctrinated by other games to simply "shoot the bad guy" that it curtails the social aspect that DayZ is trying to mimic. ArmA2 has never been about socializing, nor have other games in the "realistic" (and I always chuckle when they use that word) world of Battlefield and CoD.

So, what's to be done? If consent doesn't work, there is obviously force correct? Sure, we could implement arbitrary mechanics that slap players for killing and endorses surviving, but then it kills the freedom that is DayZ, gives it objectives, and places the player on a rail of achievements and objectives. In other words, it ceases to be a sandbox.

Either way, it doesn't look good, but there IS a third option: peer pressure. What works for bullies and social stigmas works for survivors and stalkers. If those with the power do not tolerate those that abuse it, the general consensus of the collective shifts. So, what am I saying?

If you're a clan, and you don't like mass PKing, get the power and stop it. If you're a survivor and don't like it, sign up for this "police" clan. You have the power, YOU can make it happen, you just need to go get it. I am already seeing this happening now, just look at the different areas for survivors/bandits. Patrol the beach, take in survivors and shoot bandits. If you move in a large enough force, soon nobody will bother you. Word gets around, I mean look at HA...nobody goes north in SLC1 and expects to survive.

Sorry for the wall of text, hopefully I threw something there that stuck, hoping to refine this statement over time.

[/quote']

@ Slyguy65, Sveglia, Poofus, Talskar, the idea I was replying to was to have zombies aggro bandits over survivors BY DESIGN, not in response to gunfire.

Edit: on re-reading Sveglia didn't say that at all, my mistake :D I have seen that idea floated though.

Edit2: I searched Sveglia's user history and of course I *was* right and Sveglia is simply lying. Here is Sveglia's initial post: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=8595&pid=79932#pid79932

He wanted zombies to aggro bandits BY DESIGN. Here is a c/p so he doesn't edit it later:

-One thing you can actually do is' date=' every time you killed another human being (survivor or bandit) you gain X ammount of aggro, more killings = more aggro, more zeds on you, making the game harder because of your decision to take a life.

Go "hurr durr serial killer on bean coast" and your aggro goes up to the roof... and then I want to see you trying getting to a city to grab some food or whatever, you better team up boy. And by doing so (cooperating, helping another guy, etc) you decrease, let's say, half that aggro you initially get.

[/quote']

I won't even get into how stupid his actual implementation is, but the idea is exactly as I said.

@ Virfortis: players are COMPLETELY CAPABLE of depth of gameplay, and I agree Day Z doesn't offer them the tools to do it -- the solution is not the "carebear" response of adding artificial disincentives to murder and such (which in the long run would probably just lead to MORE griefing as you find in many PvE games -- training mobs, stealing out of your pack until you kill me, etc, or allow larger groups to take turns with kill shots so as not to incur the punishments where as a lone survivor would be forced to take 5+ murders to survive), but to offer human beings the mechanics they have in real life to BE social, CREATE safety, etc.

I mentioned earlier that things like letting players toggle F to equip NO weapon (aka holster their weapon) would let a clan try and create a safe city for trade. (Of course there would still be the issue of people pickpocketing each other with the current pack implementation, etc) Keys and locks as utility items (for tents, packs, etc) would go a long way -- maybe not so realistic when a player could cut through tent/pack fabric, but neither is respawning or not letting me bury gear for later.

There are other ideas out there, but I think we need to be careful in presuming they'll work since the format of the game is fairly unique (50 man servers, cross server persistence, etc, lead to a lot of meta-gaming).

[Virfortis 111]

@ Virfortis: players are COMPLETELY CAPABLE of depth of gameplay' date=' and I agree Day Z doesn't offer them the tools to do it -- the solution is not the "carebear" response of adding artificial disincentives to murder and such, but to offer human beings the mechanics they have in real life to BE social, CREATE safety, etc.

There are other ideas out there, but I think we need to be careful in presuming they'll work since the format of the game is fairly unique (50 man servers, cross server persistence, etc, lead to a lot of meta-gaming).

[/quote']

I think that until the hype wears down, and we boil down to the cult following, depth of gameplay is only a dream. Maybe I'll be surprised along the way? I don't know. One advantage of being a cynic is that you're surprised a whole lot more than dissapointed.

I said neither consent or force works in DayZ, and only by allowing the players to enforce law do we create a free system. DayZ does this very well right now. Players can join a Survivor group to hunt bandits, and clans with their own server can setup safe zones relatively easy. I hope to, soon, see clans that go onto other servers and enforce martial law.

In other words, change is up to the player, and until players figure that out there will continue to be the problems we have today. So do you want a carebear city? Grab some friends, loot Stary, stock up and roll out.

[BlackAlpha 12]

Here's the problem. There are only two ways to achieve a goal: Consent or force.

Let me try putting it this way and seeing if it sticks:

Obviously' date=' we have a problem. That problem is players treating DayZ like another free-for-all deathmatch mod just to have fun killing "noobs" and fragging the coastline. I think we can all agree on this: DayZ is not about making the multiplayer version of STALKER. If anything, it's trying to capture the singleplayer aspect of it, that is clans forming together and survivors toughening it up or dying.

The problem is that it's relying on player consent to make the NPCs, the Duty/Freedom, the STALKER/Scientists, etc. When players have been so indoctrinated by other games to simply "shoot the bad guy" that it curtails the social aspect that DayZ is trying to mimic. ArmA2 has never been about socializing, nor have other games in the "realistic" (and I always chuckle when they use that word) world of Battlefield and CoD.

So, what's to be done? If consent doesn't work, there is obviously force correct? Sure, we could implement arbitrary mechanics that slap players for killing and endorses surviving, but then it kills the freedom that is DayZ, gives it objectives, and places the player on a rail of achievements and objectives. In other words, it ceases to be a sandbox.

Either way, it doesn't look good, but there IS a third option: peer pressure. What works for bullies and social stigmas works for survivors and stalkers. If those with the power do not tolerate those that abuse it, the general consensus of the collective shifts. So, what am I saying?

If you're a clan, and you don't like mass PKing, get the power and stop it. If you're a survivor and don't like it, sign up for this "police" clan. You have the power, YOU can make it happen, you just need to go get it. I am already seeing this happening now, just look at the different areas for survivors/bandits. Patrol the beach, take in survivors and shoot bandits. If you move in a large enough force, soon nobody will bother you. Word gets around, I mean look at HA...nobody goes north in SLC1 and expects to survive.

Sorry for the wall of text, hopefully I threw something there that stuck, hoping to refine this statement over time.

[/quote']

There's no way to police people. Most servers don't even show name tags. How do you expect clans to police a beach when you have no way to identify the bandits?

The actual problem is that there's no game mechanics that help people with such things. Why do we need game mechanics to make it happen? Because we cannot do things in this game that we can do in real life.

Showing people's name would go a very long way. You need a way to identify the people who make trouble. Right now, even if you see them shoot people, you've no idea who is actually doing the shooting, it could be any of the players on the player list.

There are other solutions as well. But it's not the players who can make them happen. The solutions must come from the devs.

[septuscap 42]

There's no way to police people. Most servers don't even show name tags. How do you expect clans to police a beach when you have no way to identify the bandits?

The actual problem is that there's no game mechanics that help people with such things. Why do we need game mechanics to make it happen? Because we cannot do things in this game that we can do in real life.

Showing people's name would go a very long way. You need a way to identify the people who make trouble. Right now' date=' even if you see them shoot people, you've no idea who is actually doing the shooting, it could be any of the players on the player list.

There are other solutions as well.

[/quote']

I am not against showing names WITHIN A CLOSE DISTANCE (ie. simulating recognition). But letting players just scan the horizon until a name blips up is just stupid.

Most PvP'ers pinpoint and grab visuals on where shots are coming from VERY quickly, so if you're having issues with that it's something you might want to practice. As for WHO specifically is doing the shooting, you wouldn't know until you got close up now would you.

But you are definitely right that there are NO mechanics to let players enforce anything themselves. It's also extremely difficult with 50 players max to achieve any sort of social fabric.

[BlackAlpha 12]

I am not against showing names WITHIN A CLOSE DISTANCE (ie. simulating recognition). But letting players just scan the horizon until a name blips up is just stupid.

Most PvP'ers pinpoint and grab visuals on where shots are coming from VERY quickly' date=' so if you're having issues with that it's something you might want to practice. As for WHO specifically is doing the shooting, you wouldn't know until you got close up now would you.

[/quote']

I updated my previous post with a line stating the devs must give us a solution to the problem.

The game simply lacks the tools to make "bandit free zones". Right now, such things are impossible.

[chronologger 0]

How I personally think we should manage PKing is getting those together who are against PKing and making a safe zone of some sorts, people have already started trying this idea but it hasn't really got into full swing yet because the communities doing these kinds of things aren't very vocal within the dayZ community. Not many people know about it or trust that those running the operations are doing their job securing an area well enough.

We need a defined recognizable group within the DayZ community that says to new and old players alike "We are here to help" loud and clearly to everyone, and I think it's up to the people complaining about PKing to step up and get it done.

I might be missing something here, a group I haven't heard about, but if not, I'm glad to to say that I would be all up for being a part of establishing or joining such a group.

I updated my previous post with a line stating the devs must give us a solution to the problem.

The game simply lacks the tools to make "bandit free zones". Right now' date=' such things are impossible.

[/quote']

Nonsense, we have people against PKing, and we have guns, that is all we need.

[Talskar 0]

I know SeptusCap, I was just poking you a little bit to add a little emphasis to a higher zombie theat. Hope you didn't mind too much :D

[BlackAlpha 12]

Nonsense' date=' we have people against PKing, and we have guns, that is all we need.

[/quote']

Explain to us how to do it then. You need more than just people with guns. We already have people with guns, yet we still have no bandit free zones. Why is that?

Because we have no way to identify the bandits or their player names. Therefore, we have no way to stop them, unless we intend to shoot everyone on sight. And so, we have no way to setup bandit free zones.

[septuscap 42]

I said neither consent or force works in DayZ' date=' and only by allowing the players to enforce law do we create a free system. DayZ does this very well right now. Players can join a Survivor group to hunt bandits, and clans with their own server can setup safe zones relatively easy. I hope to, soon, see clans that go onto other servers and enforce martial law.

[/quote']

What's in it for the clan doing the patrolling? In real life there is a lot of profit in being the safe trade city (and in many videogames as well), but life is short and cruel in Day Z and there is no point to most of the higher end gear other than just to have it (NVG's most people just hop to daytime servers, and most higher end weps aren't worth the effort over a cz550 or winchester). Maybe full auto is against the spirit of the game, but I think it would bring a LOT more value to the military gear/ammo.

There is also NO secure storage -- I've looted tents all over the map (and had mine looted), and it's safe to say tents are just a coinflip. Maybe your stuff'll be there or maybe you'll have whatever garbage another player left behind for you. Yes even if your tent is north of Olsha (thanks for the dmr ammo, I hope you like beans).

And of course the nail in the coffin is the server hopping. Oh NW airfield is being held by XYZ? NWA on server X is free. Or let's just server hop by deer stands and get gear that way. I saw some clown set up a server with a max pop of 15 (so he could hoard gear no doubt, b/c who would play on a server with 2/15?) There needs to be gear that spawns @ points of interest that can't be meta'ed. It doesn't have to be near Cherno/Elektro, Berezino/Stary/NWA would be fine, just something you can't exploit since chances are it's in demand on whatever server you hop to. I've seen some one sit at balota and server hop his way to I don't know HOW many stanag clips. It's just stupid.

Cherno/Elektro make ideal choices because they would not only be contested, they would be accessible, and would open up urban COOPERATION. If one group holds building A and another holds building B, they've got no choice BUT to cooperate to get loot X. There are all sorts of conditions that could work. Some people like the power grid idea, and I think rocket hinted at something like it in the MGP interview with giving players more ways to light up the world. Well the grid could also create depth where building A needs power from the plant in order to spawn item X. It would make COMPLETE sense in a zombie apocalypse to hold a building of interest (say a gun&ammo factory). That would create the basis for a whole new meta-game.

[Salmik 0]

The problem game is too easy and becomes boring if you try to just survive. Put in loads more zombies, make them more powerful, make food and water a LOT more scarce. Also it should take some time before your character actually leaves the game when you disconnect so you can't avoid zeds simply by aborting quickly.

[Talskar 0]

I said neither consent or force works in DayZ' date=' and only by allowing the players to enforce law do we create a free system. DayZ does this very well right now. Players can join a Survivor group to hunt bandits, and clans with their own server can setup safe zones relatively easy. I hope to, soon, see clans that go onto other servers and enforce martial law.

[/quote']

What's in it for the clan doing the patrolling? In real life there is a lot of profit in being the safe trade city (and in many videogames as well), but life is short and cruel in Day Z and there is no point to most of the higher end gear other than just to have it (NVG's most people just hop to daytime servers, and most higher end weps aren't worth the effort over a cz550 or winchester). Maybe full auto is against the spirit of the game, but I think it would bring a LOT more value to the military gear/ammo.

There is also NO secure storage -- I've looted tents all over the map (and had mine looted), and it's safe to say tents are just a coinflip. Maybe your stuff'll be there or maybe you'll have whatever garbage another player left behind for you. Yes even if your tent is north of Olsha (thanks for the dmr ammo, I hope you like beans).

And of course the nail in the coffin is the server hopping. Oh NW airfield is being held by XYZ? Let's just server hop by deer stands and get gear that way. I saw some clown set up a server with a max pop of 15 (so he could hoard gear no doubt, b/c who would play on a server with 2/15?) There needs to be gear that spawns @ points of interest that can't be meta'ed. It doesn't have to be near Cherno/Elektro, Berezino/Stary/NWA would be fine, just something you can't exploit since chances are it's in demand on whatever server you hop to. I've seen some one sit at balota and server hop his way to I don't know HOW many stanag clips. It's just stupid.

Cherno/Elektro make ideal choices because they would not only be contested, they would be accessible, and would open up urban COOPERATION. If one group holds building A and another holds building B, they've got no choice BUT to cooperate to get loot X. There are all sorts of conditions that could work. Some people like the power grid idea, and I think rocket hinted at something like it in the MGP interview with giving players more ways to light up the world. Well the grid could also create depth where building A needs power from the plant in order to spawn item X. It would make COMPLETE sense in a zombie apocalypse to hold a building of interest (say a gun&ammo factory). That would create the basis for a whole new meta-game.

This would essentially just be adding quests. A lot of people would be against this for it's similarity to an MMO but we already have fetch quests in the form of vehicles. Loot Drops with "Epic" and "Common" Gear. And Random Events in the form of Heli crash sites. Some deeper structure beyond survival isn't the worse thing in the world. The Huey is pretty cool to fly around afterall.

[septuscap 42]

This would essentially just be adding quests. A lot of people would be against this for it's similarity to an MMO but we already have fetch quests in the form of vehicles. Loot Drops with "Epic" and "Common" Gear. And Random Events in the form of Heli crash sites. Some deeper structure beyond survival isn't the worse thing in the world. The Huey is pretty cool to fly around afterall.

I didn't mean quests -- What I meant was localizing loot so you can't just find an abandoned spawn location and farm it there. NW Airfield is a decent example, but there's no reason to go there for loot unless you WANT to make it harder on yourself.

[Talskar 0]

The Powergrid idea is a quest. List of Requirements to fulfill with a more desirable loot drop as a reward. It's a quest... but that's not necessarily a bad thing is what i'm saying.

[septuscap 42]

The Powergrid idea is a quest. List of Requirements to fulfill with a more desirable loot drop as a reward. It's a quest... but that's not necessarily a bad thing is what i'm saying.

If that's a quest then so is "find hatchet to start a fire and cook better food." :D

While generically true, I don't think it's comparable to the linear quests of a themepark game. Players competing over the prize, vying for the point for completely DIFFERENT reasons (maybe one group wants to power the lights in elektro while another wants to use the plant to force the group in cherno to pay tribute), etc.

[Delta Smoke 01 765]

I have read through all the posts on this topic just to see what peoples veiws are on this matter, and as i expected they are the same as mine.

Dont get me wrong i love the physics of the game. Constantly looking over your shoulder and freezing when you hear gunshots around you. Thats suspense at its best! But with the removal of bandit skins chernarus has gone haywire. Zombie crisis has been sidelined and now everyone thinks the games main directive is to be a backstabbing murdering bastard that "kills for beans". The main problem at the min is bandits got a huge + with this last update, as they can now pose as survivors and shoot u in the back as soon as u trust them.

So in light of this iv had an idea which may solve all these problems in one and it doesnt mean changing much at all. Why not make the normal servers have friendly fire on (in effect PvE) and the hardcore servers stay as they are ? That way everyone gets the experience they want from DayZ.

Another idea i had (though im almost positive this wont be possible but il throw it out there) was to have PvE for all survivors (Friendly fire on so they cant shoot eachother) that havnt picked up a lootable skin. But on picking up that skin they are then no longer survivors and FF is now disabled for them and their adversaries (in effect bandits).

Thanks for reading this, Delta

[chronologger 0]

Nonsense' date=' we have people against PKing, and we have guns, that is all we need.

[/quote']

Explain to us how to do it then. You need more than just people with guns. We already have people with guns, yet we still have no bandit free zones. Why is that?

Because we have no way to identify the bandits or their player names. Therefore, we have no way to stop them, unless we intend to shoot everyone on sight. And so, we have no way to setup bandit free zones.

It's fairly simple I'd imagine, I haven't really put much thought into the idea as of yet so there's definitely a lot more room for improvement on this, but you basically need ANY player who wants to enter or exit the area to make a sacrifice to gain entry, specifically their gun.

Instead of making it a matter of trust or immediate identification we make it so the players literally CAN'T cause trouble within the zone, make it so they are not allowed at any point to have a weapon in the city until they take their leave where they can pick their stuff back up from where they left it, if they don't comply, we shoot them, simple as that.

I'd imagine the security of the zone would be in layers, scouts (long range weapons) just outside the perimeter, armed guards (automatic weapons) around the loot spawns and entrances, marksmen scattered along the rooftops of the buildings in the zone and maybe armed escorts (shotguns) to guide people around the area to watch their every move.

[Talskar 0]

The Powergrid idea is a quest. List of Requirements to fulfill with a more desirable loot drop as a reward. It's a quest... but that's not necessarily a bad thing is what i'm saying.

If that's a quest then so is "find hatchet to start a fire and cook better food." :D

While generically true' date=' I don't think it's comparable to the linear quests of a themepark game. Players competing over the prize, vying for the point for completely DIFFERENT reasons (maybe one group wants to power the lights in elektro while another wants to use the plant to force the group in cherno to pay tribute), etc.

[/quote']

Now that's the interesting bit. Expanding the concept of limited resources and ulterior motives.

Now what if all those fuel tanks and water wells only had a limited amount of fluid in them?

[naizarak 41]

it has always been this way. that large influx of new players has just moved through the natural "dayz cycle" of being noobs, exploring, realizing there's nothing to do, and then killing others.

[Talskar 0]

More so... what if you could contaminate fresh water source making them undrinkable?