Make decision making more complicated.

[exnihilo 0]

Recently, there have been many concerns over the increase of the "shoot first, ask later" mentality. These concerns come in other forms such as the "electro/cherno team death match arena." Personally, I have exclusively exercised this mentality. I have either engaged every player I have come across or been initiated upon. No questions asked, no warnings given, no hesitation applied. Why is that?

In my perspective, the "shoot first, ask later" mentality is not the issue. The issue is the decision making behind advocating this mentality. As of now, the simplest and safest decision is to "shoot first, ask later." Personally, I believe it is too simple. The advantages of going solo overwhelm the advantages of teaming up with a stranger.

Advantages of solo:

1. You gain the initiative in a possible upcoming confrontation.

2. One less probable proximate threat.

3. Loot.

4. Survivors do not need a companion for a majority of the time. Food, hydration, meds, and ammo can easily be collected by an individual. Survival is as easily accomplished by an individual as it is accomplished by a group.

5. Partnering up with a stranger exposes people to possible betrayal at any time. Food, hydration, and meds might be require some sharing, depending on what type of contingency is established.

6. It is easier to avoid detection by going solo.

7. No need to worry about the safety and decision making of a partner. If a partner is wounded people might feel inclined to save that partner, or aka risk their lives. No need to worry about an idiot partner shooting an unneeded flare attracting unnecessary attention.

8. No need to communicate. Decisions can be made without group consent.

9. There are rarely, if any, threats that would require an extra gun. Another survivor? Shoot or avoid. Group of survivors? Avoid. Zombies? A joke. From my experience, the greatest threat has been ladders.

I'll stop there. I had several more, but I'll try to shorten this.

To specify, "banditry" is the simplest and safest decision most of the time. How to solve this? Make solo more dangerous. Balance the advantages and disadvantages of soloing and teaming up.

Here is my take on "fixing" the supposed "problems":

1. Increase the "effectiveness" of zombies. (Sorry for the lack of a better term). Killing another survivor takes priority over alerting the horde because the zombies are rarely a threat. It is too easy to run away and kill leftover stragglers due to the animation or the apparent movement. This will make decision making a little more complicated. Is it worth eliminating this possible bandit and alerting the "new effective" zombies?

--OR--

2. Increase the number of zombies in large towns, increase the "alert range" and --(MAYBE)--reduce ammo out of large towns. I believe this may "fix" the "electro/cherno" TDM. Want to shoot another suvivor in this crowded area? Better hope there is enough ammo in the bag. This also complicates the decision making of going solo. Need supplies in town and sneaking is too difficult because of new "alert ranges"? An extra partner may provide enough ammo to fend off any unfortunate accidents.

--OR--

3. Just remove any weapons provided at spawn. I don't exactly think this is a good idea, but whatever.

Oh yea, the people killing for shits and giggles? People won't be able to change their thinking process without implementing some absurd mechanic or punching them in the face irl, so let them be. It's fun to mess around sometimes anyways.

I didn't really think through the "solutions" thoroughly, but I have a list of benefits and disadvantages in soloing and grouping. Feel free to discuss.

Edit: Oh right, forgot to mention. This won't prevent bandits from being bandits, therefore this won't alienate part of the population. Bandits just have to be smarter and start using "survivors" to their advantage before shooting them in the back. This will also stop the TDM arena in starting areas... maybe?

[Bandit Hunter 29]

Everyone is naming a solution to a problem that does not exist. Rocket has all but stated, if this is the route the social experiment is taking, so be it. He is not going to alter anything to force anyone to play the game in a different manner.

He doesn't consider this "shoot first" mentality a problem. I hate to look like i'm speaking for him, and if he doesn't feel this way i'll stand corrected. I'm simply basing this fact on his own posts. I personally have not experienced this "problem" in the slightest, despite what that the forum population would have me think.

In DayZ, the only way you're going to change this behavior, is to get in game and stop it. Find a bunch of fellow players on the Forum, set up a police force. In Baltimore, Maryland, the murder rate isn't going down because God implements a mechanic that changes the way people consider committing murder.

[ElemenoP 60]

The zombie effectiveness should be increased, not to discourage murder, but because once you know how to beat them they're a non-issue.

Attracting the attention of the horde should, imo, be as likely to kill you as another player.

As for ammo drops, the deathmatchers don't even use more than one or two clips once they get their primaries. Most of the wanna-be jessie james types I kill have more ammo on them than they'd ever use. Remember: the average life expectancy is 27 minutes. You'd merely be reducing the payout from looting towns.

[exnihilo 0]

I see, sorry to add unnecessary attention to an false problem. My bad.

Although I have no clue as to what type of "social experiment" Rocket is performing, I believe if this really was to simulate this "scenario of zombies," there would be a larger threat when it came to "zombies" because currently they are only a nuisance. As of now, my perspective shows me a simulation of a secluded area low on supplies filled with a group of survivors.

[Bandit Hunter 29]

I see' date=' sorry to add unnecessary attention to an false problem. My bad.

Although I have no clue as to what type of "social experiment" Rocket is performing, I believe if this really was to simulate this "scenario of zombies," there would be a larger threat when it came to "zombies" because currently they are only a nuisance. As of now, my perspective shows me a simulation of a secluded area low on supplies filled with a group of survivors.

[/quote']

Take the time to read some of his interviews, and responses to many forum members in the last few weeks. Its really a unique idea, pretty exciting.