Encouraging more co-operation in the mid-game

[Yeah Cain 1]

I'm not sure if this has been suggested yet, but here goes nothing

Lessen the amount a character can hold in his inventory at one time.

Why do I suggest this? Right now it's waaaay more beneficial to kill another player. If I kill Billy-bob, I get his gun, his food, his medicine, his tools, his sexy ALICE pack and his tears. Great, I'm now sorted to live in the wilds forever. But what if killing Billy-bob meant I get only some of his medicine, and maybe I had to drop my watch in order to pick-up his compass?

What if I couldn't carry 5 stanag magazines, morphine, painkillers, food, water, and a smoke grenade? What if I could only hold 3 mags, food and water? What if I couldn't hold 3 bandages and 5 magazines for my side-arm? All of a sudden Billy-bob is more useful alive then dead! Two people carrying shit tons of stuff is now better then being the lone-wolf.

All of a sudden, xxxMLGx360sniperxxXxHUEHUE is no longer a one man army that has the capacity to slaughter a city, but instead a small town!

Don't get me wrong, I'm no carebear. I realise the Player vs Player is 50% of the game, and to be quite frank, I love that; but I feel Player co-operation could do with a buff. I imagine a change like this won't change the early game PvP, but rather the mid-game PvP. If you have just a makarov, killing another player will always out-weigh cooperation because you can skip that initial scavenging stage for primaries and shit. I imagine a change like this would buff the mid-game where players are encountering other players who are already established, but not completely loaded with LMGs and NVGs in the late-game

Anyway, this is a pretty rough vision I have developed and if you guys think something like this could work, please, for the love of God throw your criticisms at this idea. Too much cowadoody and not enough survival

P.S, something like this could make the backpack mechanic God-like

P.S.S, what about am encumbrance system? Carry tons of shit, can't run as fast etc

P.s.s.s, the title is a bit extreme, try not to focus on the title, and more on the actual post

-Yeah Cain

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

I stopped at 'forcing'

Agree.

[Slyguy65 499]

I stopped at 'forcing'

Agree.

See what you people don't understand is that since it is not your actual life at stake people will just kill for shits and giggles in fact right now thats all people do since there is no reason they shouldnt...to compensate for it not actually being real life shit like the stuff TC mentioned need to be implemented there needs to be more forced cooperation but more in the form of how bloodpacks work. Bloodpacks are THE ONLY thing that requires another persons assistance. But now that hunting and cooking is out steak apparently is a nice alternative to that now... It is asinine to have more reasons to kill than to cooperate in a survival game with other people.

[Yeah Cain 1]

Ok, the title should be "Encouraging" players, rather then force, as that is what I meant. This idea of mine had no intention to make the game linnier(cant spell) in decision making

I was getting at the idea of killing players for their loot is no longer a better option, as you won't be able to carry it all of what you need to survive optimally. That way surviving on your own is still completely possible, but when you see another player there is more thought in whether or not you can risk making contact, because as it stands no contact is the "correct" choice

Again, it's not about losing all your gear if you get killed, it's about making random killings in the mid-game less viable

Perhaps I should of explained myself better in the OP

thanks for the feedback though

[Slyguy65 499]

Strongly encourage is the word that should be used since killing is second nature for everyone who has ever played a game with guns.

[Yeah Cain 1]

Strongly encourage is the word that should be used since killing is second nature for everyone who has ever played a game with guns.

I agree, I would of changed it earlier if I knew how to edit! Tis' my first post

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[Yeah Cain 1]

You're focusing far too much one aspect and potentional mechanic that could evolve from such a change, on top of that you're shading it in a negative light

You do know what an alpha is, right? Content implementations. Alpha is where is the dumb shit and crazy changes happen. If everything that was suggested in alpha was treated as an unnecessary change we will end up with a shitty game. Criticism in such a situation means that you need to expand on ideas, not shut them down the instant you can. Saying things like "I stopped reading at----" is more harm then good.

Anyway, on with the actual possible improvmenets

RIGHT, FIRST THING IS FIRST, THIS ISN'T ABOUT BACKPACKS, THIS IS ABOUT PLAYER INVENTORY, 9 primary items, and 8 secondary items, plus others for tools and shit

In the primary item slot, you can hold all your essential medicines, food and drink, a gadget of some sort, and enough ammo to kill a horde of zombies. The question is this: Is it possible that limiting the primary slots and perhaps secondary slots an effective way to slow down player killing in the mid-game and encourage?

Currently, mid-game player killing exists for a few reasons.

1) A player can handle all situations on his own more effectivley then having a companion along side him, because he doesn't have to share his loot, majority of medicine requires only one man to use, he has enough ammo to handle a town's worth of zombies.

2)A player benefits from killing because he can carry all effective equipment or make efficient trades with his own equipment from the player he just killed (I.e, droping his lee einfield for a winchester. Take all of the dead players tools such as entrenching tool, wirefencing, compass, map etc.)

3) It's too likely to get shot in the ass if you leave said player alone, especially if he's not aware of your presence

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT YOUR ALICE PACK, SURELY YOU CAN PUT ALL YOUR SHIT IN THAT INSTEAD OF ON YOUR CHARACTER"

Well, then you can't use said item, you must transfer your items from your backpack onto your inventory, which you will never have time if you are caught in a situation if you need to use a primary item. That's when you realise you made a bad decision, and then natural selection takes place

"BUT CAIN, THERES NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO TRANSFER OUR SHIT ONTO OUR CHARACTER"

well, that's why THIS IS A SUGGESTION BOARD, LET'S COME UP WITH IDEAS, BRAH

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO BE LONE SURVIVORS"

Well, if we put our heads together, I'm sure we can balance it so the lone suvivors don't get fucked in the ass by such a change.

"BUT CAIN, SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO MINDLESSLY PVP"

A change like this will make it harder for EVERYONE to solo, but it won't be impossible. Darwin's theory will kick into gear, and the best lone survivors/bandits will prevail.

"BUT CAIN, STALKER ALLOWS YOU TO CARRY LOTS OF SHIT"

Well that's fucking single player

"OK, HOW MANY SLOTS DO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE?"

I'm not entirly sure, this is a suggestion board after all. Maybe 7 slots in the primary sections, and 6 in the secondary; that way, you can still stock up to the brim with ammo and shoot up a city if you really want to. The point is if you want do something like that you can, but you just need to pre-plan what you need. Decision making and what not

This is really early stage alpha, so things like antibiotics are going to be more vital, and inventory space is going to be a mother fucker. More decisions for you to make. DO YOU REALLY NEED 4 MAGS? maybe put one in your backpack, and have more room for medicine incase you get into a sticky situation

"YOU MENTIONED TOOLS SPACE, WHAT ABOUT THAT?"

More decisions my friend. A compass, a map and a watch is pretty vital; but that hunting knife really could help you out. perhaps you can delay on building that car you saw earlier and get some meat in you instead

"WITH NOT MUCH INVENTORY SPACE, A GOOD BACKPACK IS GOING TO MAKE YOU A BIG TARGET, CAIN"

Yes! A good player will identify your pack and can determine how seasoned your character is.

"BUT THEN PEOPLE WILL START KILLING EACH OTHER FOR BACKPACKS NOW, INSTEAD OF KILLING YOU FOR SAFETY"

THAT'S GREAT! Now more murders can be justified! It's better to be killed for a reason then for no reason at all.

"BUT THIS DOESN'T COMPLETELY END ALL BLIND KILLINGS, CAIN. YOUR SUGGESTION IS STUPID AND POINTLESS AND SHOULDN'T BE THOUGHT ABOUT EVER AGAIN"

We have to start somewhere, my friend. This is an alpha game after all!

"CAIN, I THINK THIS IDEA IS SHIT"

Please, tell me what is wrong about this idea whilst keeping on topic.

-----------------------------------

I hope you see what I'm getting at now Doktor. I'm fairly sure if you didnt put "HURR DURR, I STOPPED READING AT THIS, I HAVE TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER" the next 3 replies that wasn't from me would of actually been on topic. Remember, this is an alpha, bad ideas can turn into good ones. Shooting ideas out of sky and derailing threads with off-topic replies is worse then doing nothing at all

Remember when trying to dubunk this shit (because it can't be perfect), keep on topic so we can actually determine if this idea is shit or not

[montauk 2]

I stopped at 'forcing'

Agree.

See what you people don't understand is that since it is not your actual life at stake people will just kill for shits and giggles in fact right now thats all people do since there is no reason they shouldnt...to compensate for it not actually being real life shit like the stuff TC mentioned need to be implemented there needs to be more forced cooperation but more in the form of how bloodpacks work. Bloodpacks are THE ONLY thing that requires another persons assistance. But now that hunting and cooking is out steak apparently is a nice alternative to that now... It is asinine to have more reasons to kill than to cooperate in a survival game with other people.

Our lives are always at stake.

World doesn't revolve around people who are complaining about PKers.

[Yeah Cain 1]

I stopped at 'forcing'

Agree.

See what you people don't understand is that since it is not your actual life at stake people will just kill for shits and giggles in fact right now thats all people do since there is no reason they shouldnt...to compensate for it not actually being real life shit like the stuff TC mentioned need to be implemented there needs to be more forced cooperation but more in the form of how bloodpacks work. Bloodpacks are THE ONLY thing that requires another persons assistance. But now that hunting and cooking is out steak apparently is a nice alternative to that now... It is asinine to have more reasons to kill than to cooperate in a survival game with other people.

Our lives are always at stake.

World doesn't revolve around people who are complaining about PKers.

HOLY SHIT, DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN READ THESE THREADS?

IT'S NOT ABOUT PK, IT'S ABOUT MAKING TEAMWORK MORE VIABLE, NOT PKING

[montauk 2]

You're focusing far too much one aspect and potentional mechanic that could evolve from such a change' date=' on top of that you're shading it in a negative light

You do know what an alpha is, right? Content implementations. Alpha is where is the dumb shit and crazy changes happen. If everything that was suggested in alpha was treated as an unnecessary change we will end up with a shitty game. Criticism in such a situation means that you need to expand on ideas, not shut them down the instant you can. Saying things like "I stopped reading at----" is more harm then good.

Anyway, on with the actual possible improvmenets

RIGHT, FIRST THING IS FIRST, THIS ISN'T ABOUT BACKPACKS, THIS IS ABOUT PLAYER INVENTORY, 9 primary items, and 8 secondary items, plus others for tools and shit

In the primary item slot, you can hold all your essential medicines, food and drink, a gadget of some sort, and enough ammo to kill a horde of zombies. The question is this: Is it possible that limiting the primary slots and perhaps secondary slots an effective way to slow down player killing in the mid-game and encourage?

Currently, mid-game player killing exists for a few reasons.

1) A player can handle all situations on his own more effectivley then having a companion along side him, because he doesn't have to share his loot, majority of medicine requires only one man to use, he has enough ammo to handle a town's worth of zombies.

2)A player benefits from killing because he can carry all effective equipment or make efficient trades with his own equipment from the player he just killed (I.e, droping his lee einfield for a winchester. Take all of the dead players tools such as entrenching tool, wirefencing, compass, map etc.)

3) It's too likely to get shot in the ass if you leave said player alone, especially if he's not aware of your presence

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT YOUR ALICE PACK, SURELY YOU CAN PUT ALL YOUR SHIT IN THAT INSTEAD OF ON YOUR CHARACTER"

Well, then you can't use said item, you must transfer your items from your backpack onto your inventory, which you will never have time if you are caught in a situation if you need to use a primary item. That's when you realise you made a bad decision, and then natural selection takes place

"BUT CAIN, THERES NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO TRANSFER OUR SHIT ONTO OUR CHARACTER"

well, that's why THIS IS A SUGGESTION BOARD, LET'S COME UP WITH IDEAS, BRAH

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO BE LONE SURVIVORS"

Well, if we put our heads together, I'm sure we can balance it so the lone suvivors don't get fucked in the ass by such a change.

"BUT CAIN, SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO MINDLESSLY PVP"

A change like this will make it harder for EVERYONE to solo, but it won't be impossible. Darwin's theory will kick into gear, and the best lone survivors/bandits will prevail.

"BUT CAIN, STALKER ALLOWS YOU TO CARRY LOTS OF SHIT"

Well that's fucking single player

"OK, HOW MANY SLOTS DO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE?"

I'm not entirly sure, this is a suggestion board after all. Maybe 7 slots in the primary sections, and 6 in the secondary; that way, you can still stock up to the brim with ammo and shoot up a city if you really want to. The point is if you want do something like that you can, but you just need to pre-plan what you need. Decision making and what not

This is really early stage alpha, so things like antibiotics are going to be more vital, and inventory space is going to be a mother fucker. More decisions for you to make. DO YOU REALLY NEED 4 MAGS? maybe put one in your backpack, and have more room for medicine incase you get into a sticky situation

"YOU MENTIONED TOOLS SPACE, WHAT ABOUT THAT?"

More decisions my friend. A compass, a map and a watch is pretty vital; but that hunting knife really could help you out. perhaps you can delay on building that car you saw earlier and get some meat in you instead

"WITH NOT MUCH INVENTORY SPACE, A GOOD BACKPACK IS GOING TO MAKE YOU A BIG TARGET, CAIN"

Yes! A good player will identify your pack and can determine how seasoned your character is.

"BUT THEN PEOPLE WILL START KILLING EACH OTHER FOR BACKPACKS NOW, INSTEAD OF KILLING YOU FOR SAFETY"

THAT'S GREAT! Now more murders can be justified! It's better to be killed for a reason then for no reason at all.

"BUT THIS DOESN'T COMPLETELY END ALL BLIND KILLINGS, CAIN. YOUR SUGGESTION IS STUPID AND POINTLESS AND SHOULDN'T BE THOUGHT ABOUT EVER AGAIN"

We have to start somewhere, my friend. This is an alpha game after all!

"CAIN, I THINK THIS IDEA IS SHIT"

Please, tell me what is wrong about this idea whilst keeping on topic.

-----------------------------------

I hope you see what I'm getting at now Doktor. I'm fairly sure if you didnt put "HURR DURR, I STOPPED READING AT THIS, I HAVE TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER" the next 3 replies that wasn't from me would of actually been on topic. Remember, this is an alpha, bad ideas can turn into good ones. Shooting ideas out of sky and derailing threads with off-topic replies is worse then doing nothing at all

Remember when trying to dubunk this shit (because it can't be perfect), keep on topic so we can actually determine if this idea is shit or not

[/quote']

It's trying to reduce banditry which the players make. You want to get rid of bandits? round up a bunch of people and go on a witch hunt.

---

I stopped at 'forcing'

Agree.

See what you people don't understand is that since it is not your actual life at stake people will just kill for shits and giggles in fact right now thats all people do since there is no reason they shouldnt...to compensate for it not actually being real life shit like the stuff TC mentioned need to be implemented there needs to be more forced cooperation but more in the form of how bloodpacks work. Bloodpacks are THE ONLY thing that requires another persons assistance. But now that hunting and cooking is out steak apparently is a nice alternative to that now... It is asinine to have more reasons to kill than to cooperate in a survival game with other people.

Our lives are always at stake.

World doesn't revolve around people who are complaining about PKers.

HOLY SHIT' date=' DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN READ THESE THREADS?

IT'S NOT ABOUT PK, IT'S ABOUT MAKING TEAMWORK MORE VIABLE, NOT PKING

[/quote']

Really? Because that is the whole reason you suggested this:

"Why do I suggest this? Right now it's waaaay more beneficial to kill another player."

So basically you want to make it harder to survive and be unable to sustain yourself because people kill people for guns/ammo/food/etc.

[Tyrael75 (DayZ) 21]

You're focusing far too much one aspect and potentional mechanic that could evolve from such a change' date=' on top of that you're shading it in a negative light

You do know what an alpha is, right? Content implementations. Alpha is where is the dumb shit and crazy changes happen. If everything that was suggested in alpha was treated as an unnecessary change we will end up with a shitty game. Criticism in such a situation means that you need to expand on ideas, not shut them down the instant you can. Saying things like "I stopped reading at----" is more harm then good.

Anyway, on with the actual possible improvmenets

RIGHT, FIRST THING IS FIRST, THIS ISN'T ABOUT BACKPACKS, THIS IS ABOUT PLAYER INVENTORY, 9 primary items, and 8 secondary items, plus others for tools and shit

In the primary item slot, you can hold all your essential medicines, food and drink, a gadget of some sort, and enough ammo to kill a horde of zombies. The question is this: Is it possible that limiting the primary slots and perhaps secondary slots an effective way to slow down player killing in the mid-game and encourage?

Currently, mid-game player killing exists for a few reasons.

1) A player can handle all situations on his own more effectivley then having a companion along side him, because he doesn't have to share his loot, majority of medicine requires only one man to use, he has enough ammo to handle a town's worth of zombies.

2)A player benefits from killing because he can carry all effective equipment or make efficient trades with his own equipment from the player he just killed (I.e, droping his lee einfield for a winchester. Take all of the dead players tools such as entrenching tool, wirefencing, compass, map etc.)

3) It's too likely to get shot in the ass if you leave said player alone, especially if he's not aware of your presence

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT YOUR ALICE PACK, SURELY YOU CAN PUT ALL YOUR SHIT IN THAT INSTEAD OF ON YOUR CHARACTER"

Well, then you can't use said item, you must transfer your items from your backpack onto your inventory, which you will never have time if you are caught in a situation if you need to use a primary item. That's when you realise you made a bad decision, and then natural selection takes place

"BUT CAIN, THERES NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO TRANSFER OUR SHIT ONTO OUR CHARACTER"

well, that's why THIS IS A SUGGESTION BOARD, LET'S COME UP WITH IDEAS, BRAH

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO BE LONE SURVIVORS"

Well, if we put our heads together, I'm sure we can balance it so the lone suvivors don't get fucked in the ass by such a change.

"BUT CAIN, SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO MINDLESSLY PVP"

A change like this will make it harder for EVERYONE to solo, but it won't be impossible. Darwin's theory will kick into gear, and the best lone survivors/bandits will prevail.

"BUT CAIN, STALKER ALLOWS YOU TO CARRY LOTS OF SHIT"

Well that's fucking single player

"OK, HOW MANY SLOTS DO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE?"

I'm not entirly sure, this is a suggestion board after all. Maybe 7 slots in the primary sections, and 6 in the secondary; that way, you can still stock up to the brim with ammo and shoot up a city if you really want to. The point is if you want do something like that you can, but you just need to pre-plan what you need. Decision making and what not

This is really early stage alpha, so things like antibiotics are going to be more vital, and inventory space is going to be a mother fucker. More decisions for you to make. DO YOU REALLY NEED 4 MAGS? maybe put one in your backpack, and have more room for medicine incase you get into a sticky situation

"YOU MENTIONED TOOLS SPACE, WHAT ABOUT THAT?"

More decisions my friend. A compass, a map and a watch is pretty vital; but that hunting knife really could help you out. perhaps you can delay on building that car you saw earlier and get some meat in you instead

"WITH NOT MUCH INVENTORY SPACE, A GOOD BACKPACK IS GOING TO MAKE YOU A BIG TARGET, CAIN"

Yes! A good player will identify your pack and can determine how seasoned your character is.

"BUT THEN PEOPLE WILL START KILLING EACH OTHER FOR BACKPACKS NOW, INSTEAD OF KILLING YOU FOR SAFETY"

THAT'S GREAT! Now more murders can be justified! It's better to be killed for a reason then for no reason at all.

"BUT THIS DOESN'T COMPLETELY END ALL BLIND KILLINGS, CAIN. YOUR SUGGESTION IS STUPID AND POINTLESS AND SHOULDN'T BE THOUGHT ABOUT EVER AGAIN"

We have to start somewhere, my friend. This is an alpha game after all!

"CAIN, I THINK THIS IDEA IS SHIT"

Please, tell me what is wrong about this idea whilst keeping on topic.

-----------------------------------

I hope you see what I'm getting at now Doktor. I'm fairly sure if you didnt put "HURR DURR, I STOPPED READING AT THIS, I HAVE TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER" the next 3 replies that wasn't from me would of actually been on topic. Remember, this is an alpha, bad ideas can turn into good ones. Shooting ideas out of sky and derailing threads with off-topic replies is worse then doing nothing at all

Remember when trying to dubunk this shit (because it can't be perfect), keep on topic so we can actually determine if this idea is shit or not

[/quote']

It's trying to reduce banditry which the players make. You want to get rid of bandits? round up a bunch of people and go on a witch hunt.

---

Agree.

See what you people don't understand is that since it is not your actual life at stake people will just kill for shits and giggles in fact right now thats all people do since there is no reason they shouldnt...to compensate for it not actually being real life shit like the stuff TC mentioned need to be implemented there needs to be more forced cooperation but more in the form of how bloodpacks work. Bloodpacks are THE ONLY thing that requires another persons assistance. But now that hunting and cooking is out steak apparently is a nice alternative to that now... It is asinine to have more reasons to kill than to cooperate in a survival game with other people.

Our lives are always at stake.

World doesn't revolve around people who are complaining about PKers.

HOLY SHIT' date=' DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN READ THESE THREADS?

IT'S NOT ABOUT PK, IT'S ABOUT MAKING TEAMWORK MORE VIABLE, NOT PKING

[/quote']

Really? Because that is the whole reason you suggested this:

"Why do I suggest this? Right now it's waaaay more beneficial to kill another player."

So basically you want to make it harder to survive and be unable to sustain yourself because people kill people for guns/ammo/food/etc.

Well Syrasa, it's almost near impossible to get a group together because just about every player is hell-bent, on killing everyone and everything on sight.

[Yeah Cain 1]

It's trying to reduce banditry which the players make. You want to get rid of bandits? round up a bunch of people and go on a witch hunt.

Sweet jesus fuck, it's in the title

this isn't about bandit killing survivor, bandit on bandit, survivor on survivor.

It's about making teamwork a more viable option

Is it really that hard to understand? Did I do something wrong? Am I not talking English here? There can't be this many retards on the forums, right?

edit---

HOLY SHIT TYRAEL, YOU'RE NOT RETARDED, OH THANK FUCK

I haven't seen someone on this thread who has the mental capacity to read a post before commenting yet

You're a great sight for sore eyes, I seriously thought it was game over for me

double edit ---

"""Really? Because that is the whole reason you suggested this:

"Why do I suggest this? Right now it's waaaay more beneficial to kill another player."

So basically you want to make it harder to survive and be unable to sustain yourself because people kill people for guns/ammo/food/etc."""

No, for the love of fuck, you read one paragraph and decided you had enough information to make a retarded contribution

It's not that people kill for guns/food/ammo, THAT'S FINE, THAT'S A PART OF THE GAME, THAT'S SURVIVAL

IT'S THE KILLING OF ANOTHER PLAYER BECAUSE HE'S MORE USEFUL DEAD THEN ALIVE, EVEN IF HE DOESN'T KNOW YOU'RE THERE

[Hesson 1]

If you were worried about players killing other players to get all their stuff' date=' you could do it like EVE where there is a chance some or almost all of their items will be destroyed when that player is killed. Presume the bullets damaged the equipment when they got shot or something.

[/quote']

This is an excellent idea, and should be implemented immediately!

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

You're focusing far too much one aspect and potentional mechanic that could evolve from such a change' date=' on top of that you're shading it in a negative light

You do know what an alpha is, right? Content implementations. Alpha is where is the dumb shit and crazy changes happen. If everything that was suggested in alpha was treated as an unnecessary change we will end up with a shitty game. Criticism in such a situation means that you need to expand on ideas, not shut them down the instant you can. Saying things like "I stopped reading at----" is more harm then good.

Anyway, on with the actual possible improvmenets

RIGHT, FIRST THING IS FIRST, THIS ISN'T ABOUT BACKPACKS, THIS IS ABOUT PLAYER INVENTORY, 9 primary items, and 8 secondary items, plus others for tools and shit

In the primary item slot, you can hold all your essential medicines, food and drink, a gadget of some sort, and enough ammo to kill a horde of zombies. The question is this: Is it possible that limiting the primary slots and perhaps secondary slots an effective way to slow down player killing in the mid-game and encourage?

Currently, mid-game player killing exists for a few reasons.

1) A player can handle all situations on his own more effectivley then having a companion along side him, because he doesn't have to share his loot, majority of medicine requires only one man to use, he has enough ammo to handle a town's worth of zombies.

2)A player benefits from killing because he can carry all effective equipment or make efficient trades with his own equipment from the player he just killed (I.e, droping his lee einfield for a winchester. Take all of the dead players tools such as entrenching tool, wirefencing, compass, map etc.)

3) It's too likely to get shot in the ass if you leave said player alone, especially if he's not aware of your presence

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT YOUR ALICE PACK, SURELY YOU CAN PUT ALL YOUR SHIT IN THAT INSTEAD OF ON YOUR CHARACTER"

Well, then you can't use said item, you must transfer your items from your backpack onto your inventory, which you will never have time if you are caught in a situation if you need to use a primary item. That's when you realise you made a bad decision, and then natural selection takes place

"BUT CAIN, THERES NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO TRANSFER OUR SHIT ONTO OUR CHARACTER"

well, that's why THIS IS A SUGGESTION BOARD, LET'S COME UP WITH IDEAS, BRAH

"BUT CAIN, WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO BE LONE SURVIVORS"

Well, if we put our heads together, I'm sure we can balance it so the lone suvivors don't get fucked in the ass by such a change.

"BUT CAIN, SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO MINDLESSLY PVP"

A change like this will make it harder for EVERYONE to solo, but it won't be impossible. Darwin's theory will kick into gear, and the best lone survivors/bandits will prevail.

"BUT CAIN, STALKER ALLOWS YOU TO CARRY LOTS OF SHIT"

Well that's fucking single player

"OK, HOW MANY SLOTS DO YOU THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE?"

I'm not entirly sure, this is a suggestion board after all. Maybe 7 slots in the primary sections, and 6 in the secondary; that way, you can still stock up to the brim with ammo and shoot up a city if you really want to. The point is if you want do something like that you can, but you just need to pre-plan what you need. Decision making and what not

This is really early stage alpha, so things like antibiotics are going to be more vital, and inventory space is going to be a mother fucker. More decisions for you to make. DO YOU REALLY NEED 4 MAGS? maybe put one in your backpack, and have more room for medicine incase you get into a sticky situation

"YOU MENTIONED TOOLS SPACE, WHAT ABOUT THAT?"

More decisions my friend. A compass, a map and a watch is pretty vital; but that hunting knife really could help you out. perhaps you can delay on building that car you saw earlier and get some meat in you instead

"WITH NOT MUCH INVENTORY SPACE, A GOOD BACKPACK IS GOING TO MAKE YOU A BIG TARGET, CAIN"

Yes! A good player will identify your pack and can determine how seasoned your character is.

"BUT THEN PEOPLE WILL START KILLING EACH OTHER FOR BACKPACKS NOW, INSTEAD OF KILLING YOU FOR SAFETY"

THAT'S GREAT! Now more murders can be justified! It's better to be killed for a reason then for no reason at all.

"BUT THIS DOESN'T COMPLETELY END ALL BLIND KILLINGS, CAIN. YOUR SUGGESTION IS STUPID AND POINTLESS AND SHOULDN'T BE THOUGHT ABOUT EVER AGAIN"

We have to start somewhere, my friend. This is an alpha game after all!

"CAIN, I THINK THIS IDEA IS SHIT"

Please, tell me what is wrong about this idea whilst keeping on topic.

-----------------------------------

I hope you see what I'm getting at now Doktor. I'm fairly sure if you didnt put "HURR DURR, I STOPPED READING AT THIS, I HAVE TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER" the next 3 replies that wasn't from me would of actually been on topic. Remember, this is an alpha, bad ideas can turn into good ones. Shooting ideas out of sky and derailing threads with off-topic replies is worse then doing nothing at all

Remember when trying to dubunk this shit (because it can't be perfect), keep on topic so we can actually determine if this idea is shit or not

[/quote']

It's trying to reduce banditry which the players make. You want to get rid of bandits? round up a bunch of people and go on a witch hunt.

---

See what you people don't understand is that since it is not your actual life at stake people will just kill for shits and giggles in fact right now thats all people do since there is no reason they shouldnt...to compensate for it not actually being real life shit like the stuff TC mentioned need to be implemented there needs to be more forced cooperation but more in the form of how bloodpacks work. Bloodpacks are THE ONLY thing that requires another persons assistance. But now that hunting and cooking is out steak apparently is a nice alternative to that now... It is asinine to have more reasons to kill than to cooperate in a survival game with other people.

Our lives are always at stake.

World doesn't revolve around people who are complaining about PKers.

HOLY SHIT' date=' DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN READ THESE THREADS?

IT'S NOT ABOUT PK, IT'S ABOUT MAKING TEAMWORK MORE VIABLE, NOT PKING

[/quote']

Really? Because that is the whole reason you suggested this:

"Why do I suggest this? Right now it's waaaay more beneficial to kill another player."

So basically you want to make it harder to survive and be unable to sustain yourself because people kill people for guns/ammo/food/etc.

Well Syrasa, it's almost near impossible to get a group together because just about every player is hell-bent, on killing everyone and everything on sight.

Honestly, I just wanted this quote to become intense.

I would like to direct you at my post about team work philosophy

I think I saw somewhere that it's about inventory, why don't you just suggest a Weight system like ACE

[Tyrael75 (DayZ) 21]

It's trying to reduce banditry which the players make. You want to get rid of bandits? round up a bunch of people and go on a witch hunt.

Sweet jesus fuck' date=' it's in the title

this isn't about bandit killing survivor, bandit on bandit, survivor on survivor.

It's about making teamwork a more viable option

Is it really that hard to understand? Did I do something wrong? Am I not talking English here? There can't be this many retards on the forums, right?

edit---

HOLY SHIT TYRAEL, YOU'RE NOT RETARDED, OH THANK FUCK

I haven't seen someone on this thread who has the mental capacity to read a post before commenting yet

You're a great sight for sore eyes, I seriously thought it was game over for me

[/quote']

Your not the only one who gets screwed over, you will be lucky to find a server full of friendlies, kinda why id rather start a server ment for casual players who do not want to PvP, it's already hard enough with the zombies being able to aggro onto you without you making them have a reason to do so.

[Yeah Cain 1]

Thanks Bullfrog, I'll check that out now

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

Thanks Bullfrog' date=' I'll check that out now

[/quote']

No prob mate. I think your post will be more towards the ACE Weight system instead of my teamwork philosophies post. There's a lot of post in here that make it confusing.

[montauk 2]

Well Syrasa' date=' it's almost near impossible to get a group together because just about every player is hell-bent, on killing everyone and everything on sight.

[/quote']

It's easier than you think. I have run into very few actual hostile players. In fact I end up being one of the only hostile ones on the server. Players are so easily ready to team up and rid the world of the zombie hordes that they don't realize that hey, maybe that person is just using you for a transfusion and will shoot you after.

I've only been killed by players ~10 times, and I've died way more than that. I've met countless players in game, some of which I betrayed, even one that I blamed on bandits [and since we formed a 'bond' he believed me]

It depends on the player.

---

Your not the only one who gets screwed over' date=' you will be lucky to find a server full of friendlies, kinda why id rather start a server ment for casual players who do not want to PvP, it's already hard enough with the zombies being able to aggro onto you without you making them have a reason to do so.

[/quote']

Then you are clearly on the wrong servers. Because the ones I end up on, and believe me I choose random ones. Are full of friendlies. Most of them are too friendly for their own good ;)

[Jugg 33]

Don't stress Cain, most people have zero reading apprehension. I blame the parents. Any ways ...

Your ideas are on the right track for encouraging team work without forcing it. Realistic carry amounts and weight affects is a great idea and one I've been throwing around in my own mind. I'd go so far as to say something like cans of beans should not be able to be carried on your person, only in a backpack. Seriously, try pack 1 or 2 cans of beans IN YOUR POCKETS and go for a job... let me know how that goes. Like wise someone with a full personal inventory and full alice pack should be moving slower and require more energy.

Some say this is about removing bandits?? No, it is not. How can a bandit survive if they cannot carry everything??? Like they would in real life, by having a home, a lair, a stash .. somewhere they return back to with their spoils after a successful hunt. That is the mark of a real bandit, not some weekend warrior.

To all the bandits who are sooo scared of any change that will harm their lols method of gameplay I have only one thing to say. ADAPT OR DIE CARE BEAR BANDIT.

[montauk 2]

Don't stress Cain' date=' most people have zero reading apprehension. I blame the parents. Any ways ...

Your ideas are on the right track for encouraging team work without forcing it. Realistic carry amounts and weight affects is a great idea and one I've been throwing around in my own mind. I'd go so far as to say something like cans of beans should not be able to be carried on your person, only in a backpack. Seriously, try pack 1 or 2 cans of beans IN YOUR POCKETS and go for a job... let me know how that goes. Like wise someone with a full personal inventory and full alice pack should be moving slower and require more energy.

Some say this is about removing bandits?? No, it is not. How can a bandit survive if they cannot carry everything??? Like they would in real life, by having a home, a lair, a stash .. somewhere they return back to with their spoils after a successful hunt. That is the mark of a real bandit, not some weekend warrior.

To all the bandits who are sooo scared of any change that will harm their lols method of gameplay I have only one thing to say. ADAPT OR DIE CARE BEAR BANDIT.

[/quote']

Try carrying beans in your pockets? The majority of the characters [excluding female ones at the moment] have load-bearing or combat vests on them. I imagine that would affect their ability to carry items greatly.

ArmA 2's carrying system is already pretty realistic. It seems like you're trying to FORCE teamwork so that way people can't actually sustain themselves if they want and thus also trying to force a particular style of playing which is NOT the point of a sandbox game.

---

Also, it is far from my parent's fault. In fact they are very intelligent people. It seems that Cain threw a hissy fit on the last couple pages because we disagreed with his idea.

---

And calling us 'carebears' as well when in fact you're all trying to make the bandits punished greatly [trying to force cooperation and such upon survivors. All the absolutely insane suggestions that there be a sanity metre for bandits. I mean, really?]

---

As well as make the game easier for yourselves, so think twice before you call us 'carebears'. Because a person should be able to sustain themselves. If it becomes more rewarding to kill them then so be it. Maybe they don't want to give up their hard-earned M4, in which case a little force will be needed.

[Jugg 33]

You are a care bear. You are crying when someone suggests making the game harder for you (Even thought this design targets EVERYONE). That makes your a care bear. Also lol.. combat vests are made to hold items with sharp corners (ie square, rectangular) not cans of beans. Like a said... TRY IT.

These ideas FORCE nothing of you. You simply wish to be a 1man/woman god. That is not realistic, or even as rocket put it capable of "suspending disbelief" .. Like I said already. ADAPT OR DIE CARE BEAR. No one is forcing you to cooperate, you are more then free to create a stash and horde items.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

This may be a cliche but..

Ya'll are arguing like a old marry couple, Just let this post drop.

[montauk 2]

You are a care bear. You are crying when someone suggests making the game harder for you (Even thought this design targets EVERYONE). That makes your a care bear. Also lol.. combat vests are made to hold items with sharp corners (ie square' date=' rectangular) not cans of beans. Like a said... TRY IT.

These ideas FORCE nothing of you. You simply wish to be a 1man/woman god. That is not realistic, or even as rocket put it capable of "suspending disbelief" .. Like I said already. ADAPT OR DIE CARE BEAR. No one is forcing you to cooperate, you are more then free to create a stash and horde items.

[/quote']

Okay! Just makes it all the more fun to hunt you down and murder you ^_^