"Balancing" Survivors and Bandits

[grasmann 23]

I thought about a way to balance the ratio between bandits and survivors without touching the gameplay too much.

One thing is clear the bandits shouldn't have a direct disadvantage, but what about giving the survivors and actual

advantage for their style of playing?

My idea is the following:

If a survivor, which actually never killed another player, dies, he/she can choose 3 items to keep after death.

For example a weapon with too magazines of ammo.

So a survivor that made it to the baracks and got a decent rifle and fitting ammo will always be able to respawn with

this weapon unless he killed another player, but the bandit that killed him/her should still be able to loot this rifle.

So the weapon would be doubled on death.

This would make the life a little bit easier for niceguys, while bandits can continue playing their style.

Just give survivors an easier start after death as long as they don't kill other people.

If a survivor made it far enough in the game he/she can still decide to give up this advantage and defend themself

against the next bandit.

I guess hackers could also use this feature to their advantage, even if they are bandits, but we can't involve hackers

in such discussion, seriously.

What do you think about it?

Edited August 14, 2012 by grasmann

[martin_sonderegger@bluewin.ch 141]

I think the easiest way to balance S/B is to improve the AI routines of the survivors. Seriously, right now they're just broken. Instead of stealthing like any human player would do, the stupid AI survivors shoot the loudest guns in midst of a big city and attract thousands of Zs and Bs to their location. But the worst thing about the survivor AI is the fact that the combat routines aren't implemented yet. Instead of shooting back they only close their client as soon as they hear gunfire a mile away. Strangely enough the survbots have some kind of script running which opens threads on the forums as soon as their character died because they couldn't close the game fast enough.

So in a nutshell, Rocket just has to improve the combat AI and maybe implement some common sense and we should be fine.

[grasmann 23]

I think the easiest way to balance S/B is to improve the AI routines of the survivors. Seriously, right now they're just broken. Instead of stealthing like any human player would do, the stupid AI survivors shoot the loudest guns in midst of a big city and attract thousands of Zs and Bs to their location. But the worst thing about the survivor AI is the fact that the combat routines aren't implemented yet. Instead of shooting back they only close their client as soon as they hear gunfire a mile away. Strangely enough the survbots have some kind of script running which opens threads on the forums as soon as their character died because they couldn't close the game fast enough.

So in a nutshell, Rocket just has to improve the combat AI and maybe implement some common sense and we should be fine.

Mind if I just ignore your trolling sir?

[Lennsik 176]

Your first suggestion will practically break the game for dupers, you this, right?

[ZomboWTF 527]

this is such a bad and unimaginative idea, i cant even explain why we would need this, dayZ is a PvP game, damnit, not hello kittie online

bandits being everywhere is needed, its allready too easy to survive, zombies need to be harder (not faster though, its good the way it is right now)

punishing banditry would esult in too many players being friendly, making the game boring

[Jaycat 10]

So a survivor that made it to the baracks and got a decent rifle and fitting ammo will always be able to respawn with

this weapon unless he killed another player, but the bandit that killed him/her should still be able to loot this rifle.

So the weapon would be doubled on death.

do you really not see the huge flaw on this ?

[grasmann 23]

Your first suggestion will practically break the game for dupers, you this, right?

Well, ok practically you could help a survivor reach the baracks and as soon as he/she has a rifle

you just kill him to double the rifle. But you can't carry many weapons in this game ... so I guess it

wouldn't be such a problem at all.

[martin_sonderegger@bluewin.ch 141]

Mind if I just ignore your trolling sir?

It's still better than awarding players for being bad and stupid. Good survivors shoot back and get their bonus from dead bandits or can keep the loot they already got by not getting shot. Bad survivors die, as well as bad bandits. I can't see an imbalance there to be honest.

No game, no matter if video game, board game, sport or anything else, should award stupid behaviour.

Edited August 14, 2012 by daskleineviech

[Lennsik 176]

Except for, you know, clans? And Dupers?

[Hawk24 94]

Yeah....no

[gelmous 12]

people will exploit this idea to dupe weapons

[thehumandove 344]

No god please no god

[grasmann 23]

Well, ok ... I understand your concerns ... so what do you think about the idea without the double effect?

My main idea is that a survivor can keep some items, as a niceguy bonus.

EDIT:

I edited the first post.

EDIT2:

punishing banditry would esult in too many players being friendly, making the game boring

That's exactly the point ... I DON'T want to punish banditry I want to encourage more people to be survivors.

Edited August 14, 2012 by grasmann

[ZomboWTF 527]

find another bonus, this is terrible

actually, they dont need any bonus, they are displayed as survivors and have the doubt adantage if they are gonna shoot on sight

[martin_sonderegger@bluewin.ch 141]

Well, ok ... I understand your concerns ... so what do you think about the idea without the double effect?

My main idea is that a survivor can keep some items, as a niceguy bonus.

Still the same problem, why should people who don't know how to stay alive and make big mistakes be rewarded for that? It's not that hard to not be a bandit and stay alive.

[grasmann 23]

Still the same problem, why should people who don't know how to stay alive and make big mistakes be rewarded for that? It's not that hard to not be a bandit and stay alive.

I think you don't understand survivors at all.

It's not like they are too stupid to survive ... it's just that they don't want to shoot everybody on sight. They want to team up with a stranger here and there.

They want to have a nice time playing WITH some other people not AGAINST everybody.

[sixbarns 217]

Sounds like a free trip to the coast with gear in hand for would be bandits.

[Hawk24 94]

It's not like they are too stupid to survive (...) They want to team up with a stranger

That's pretty stupid if you ask me

I DON'T want to punish banditry I want to encourage more people to be survivors.

Exactly the same thing

By not giving bandits the option to keep a firearm after death you are actively punishing their gameplaystyle in favor of another gameplaystyle

Edited August 14, 2012 by Hawk24

[martin_sonderegger@bluewin.ch 141]

I think you don't understand survivors at all.

It's not like they are too stupid to survive ... it's just that they don't want to shoot everybody on sight. They want to team up with a stranger here and there.

They want to have a nice time playing WITH some other people not AGAINST everybody.

That's all possible for survivors. But if they get shot at and don't manage to survive the firefight, they shouldn't get a freebe as "reward" for bad fighting tactics, that's the problem. Nobody is obligate to KOS and it is actually risky to be a bandit. People here claim that beeing a bandit is so much easier and the game is unfair, but nobody seems to consider that, if you are not a Elektro sniper pussy, you have a 50/50 chance of deing everytime you attack a survivor. So the "reward" for good survivors is that they get less attacked, i.e. they're good at stealth, and keep their loot and life for a longer time.

[ZomboWTF 527]

i am not a bandit, most of the time, meaning:

if i see someone, i trail him

then, i look at his actions, is he a good/bad player?

most of the time, if they are too occupied with other stuff i choose to confront them nd have a talk over a wall or other things

sometimes, i just shoot them for suspected douchebaggery

however, it is very rare that i engage someone up close and get shot there, when i choose to get closer, most of the people choose to not fight and have a talk/trade

i dont see problems with bandits, as they are part of the game and should not be punished in any way for the path they have chosen

being shown as a bandit is enough allready, we dont need an extra bpnus for people not choosing the path

[grasmann 23]

I just have the feeling that nearly everybody is a bandit ... so I have the feeling something has to be done about it.

Maybe I was just on the wrong servers ...

[gambles 234]

Look for clan of survivors > find clan of survivors > just say they are survivors and actually shoot EVERYTHING > dupe items > horde stuff in one corner of the map > freak out at eachother when items/vehicles disapear.

There are no Bandits/Murderers/Survivors lmao. I have learned this, there are just clans / groups of people who shoot other people and collect valuable pixels as they try there best NOT to actually play DayZ.,

Edited August 14, 2012 by Gambles

[McLovinCR 29]

Good intentions OP, bad execution.

Better leave before this turns into a bloodba... oh crap

[SillySil 295]

The issue is that shooting people on sight doesn't have any disadvantages while being friendly does. So to balance this out I think a disadvantage should be added for killing people if you're not defending yourself. Not too harsh tho. Both playstyles need to be equally viable.

[Gradan 4]

Taking out all sniper weapons and thermal scopes would balance a lot.

Sniper don't take high risk when they know what they do.

Shoot a few surveyors. log out. Nearly perfectly safe.

Without snipers your are forced to engange and get in combat range and taking higher risk to get revealed and shot in combat.