Carebear Brainstorming Thread

[JamesGTAIV (DayZ) 15]

Hey guys

I see tons of threads/posts every day about the rise in murders in the game and although I didn't agree there was a problem before, I'm kinda starting to see one. Even the in-game chat activity is starting to calm down as it seems people are less social due to mistrust.

I know, I know, someone is gonna come in here and say "well in a real apocalypse situation, people would be mistrusting and kill each other for guns and shiz." If we want to be brutally realistic, let's face it: 90% wouldn't have the balls to be a bandit or are too out of shape from gaming to even run from a zombie with no legs!

This is still a game. Whether you wanna call it a simulator or whatever, it's still a game and wouldn't get so much outside attention if it didn't look fun. Truth is, that fun factor is going down, and that really is mostly due to a lack of social interaction in the game and not being able to even look for friends since nearly every person you see, fires at you.

The point of this thread: Brainstorm ways to implement a balance between good and evil.

How are bandits rewarded and punished?

How are survivors rewarded and punished?

etc.

My solution:

-Spawn correction: Players spawn at random locations on the map. No more coastline, making it easier for groups to meet and harder for bandits to kill newly spawned players. This will also populate the map with activity rather than the north being looked at as a safe zone.

-Good survivor rewards: Ability to keep your essential gear through three lifespans. Say you find a map, compass, hatchet, etc. The biggest reward to being a good person is the ability to spawn with your essential gear three times. After your fourth death, complete restart.

[gizm0 96]

Wouldn't also opening more building up to have loot in them in the smaller towns also make it so bandits can't just camp the major spots to prey on those looking for some loot?

however I say your idea is great on paper.

[ihax 16]

If I read the word "carebear" on this forum one more time...

Anyways I think losing everything when you die is fine. If you allow someone to keep their stuff for the next 3 lives means they don't have to be as cautious or make life threatening decisions.

[tails13 0]

I don't know why you have to use the word 'fag', it's a disgusting word.

I like your first point though, random spawning would be good. Even spawning inside random residential buildings through out the map would be cool. Similar to the beginning of The Walking Dead, waking up from a sleep/coma and all hell has broken loose.

I don't want to specifically reward/punish a certain type of player though so I can't agree with your second idea.

[JamesGTAIV (DayZ) 15]

That's true, iHax. Now that I think about it, keeping your gear is a bit excessive. There really is a problem with the game being a deathmatch with zombies sprinkled on it.

@Tails: I don't mean punishment in a literal sense, I just mean the pros and cons for each character type.

[Satire (DayZ) 23]

You could form a pack of 'carebears' and care for the world together.

[Bandit Hunter 29]

You're coming up with solutions to a non-existent problem. Read Rocket's interviews/forum posts to understand his view on the matter.

[Mjolnir (DayZ) 1]

I'm honestly getting kind of sick of this "anti game" talk about how Day Z is supposed to "accurately simulate an apocalypse" or how it is supposed to not encourage any kind of player behavior over another. The fact is that this game IS turning into Cherno/Elektro deathmatch, and now that the COD/BF3 meatgrinder crowd are playing Day Z it is only going to get worse.

The fact is that the bandit transition provided a very interesting and unique gameplay element, and it was one of the major and DEFINING things about Day Z in its pre 1.60 iteration (I realize the bandit skin was not present at the beginning either). It made you think twice about killing someone for no good reason, because it would have consequences of some kind at a later time. I realize no such transition would occur in a "real zombie apocalypse," (which is quite honestly not a situation that would ever arise anyway) but the fact is that it prevented people from mindlessly slaughtering each other.

Now I know the bandit system was flawed; A friend of mine was turned into a bandit after defending himself against a hostile survivor, and was then slain on sight by another survivor minutes later after his skin had switched (and after he had just found a GPS, RangeFinder, and other goodies).

I think spawning players all over the map would pretty much get rid of the Cherno Deathmatch problem. Players would have to invest more real life time in the game to get to places with other players, so they are less likely to waste that time by getting into pointless firefights.

I definitely do not want players to be able to keep things after they die; that would defeat the purpose of the game and destroy the atmosphere and get rid of the intense emotion that Day Z can create (if you want to keep stuff after you die, pitch a tent).

I wish people would stop with all this "carebear" namecalling crap. The fact is that I don't see myself EVER teaming up with randoms again like I did earlier in Day Z; moreover I will probably just kill people on sight (or tell them to get moving under threat of death) because I don't plan on losing my character that has been alive for over a week to some survivor looking to steal my stuff. This means no more random cooperation, and I think this is bad overall for Day Z.

[ytman18@gmail.com 9]

The point of this thread: Brainstorm ways to implement a balance between good and evil.

This is your problem here... there is not only no good/evil but there is no balance to speak of. The game is about surviving in the manner that suits you best (when played 'right', I don't really want to start the whole debate here though).

Many people find it hard to survive and as a result they go and do the one thing that is easy in this game; killing people who don't expect it. Oh well. I personally like the whole Elek/Chern death match situation right now. Basically its dog eat dog around the cities which... I think is pretty reasonable in lawless land (now of course the proliferation of guns and ammo may be unrealistic but this is an alpha Survival FPS).

[Bandit Hunter 29]

I'm honestly getting kind of sick of this "anti game" talk about how Day Z is supposed to "accurately simulate an apocalypse" or how it is supposed to not encourage any kind of player behavior over another. The fact is that this game IS turning into Cherno/Elektro deathmatch' date=' and now that the COD/BF3 meatgrinder crowd are playing Day Z it is only going to get worse.

The fact is that the bandit transition provided a very interesting and unique gameplay element, and it was one of the major and DEFINING things about Day Z in its pre 1.60 iteration (I realize the bandit skin was not present at the beginning either). It made you think twice about killing someone for no good reason, because it would have consequences of some kind at a later time. I realize no such transition would occur in a "real zombie apocalypse," (which is quite honestly not a situation that would ever arise anyway) but the fact is that it prevented people from mindlessly slaughtering each other.

Now I know the bandit system was flawed; A friend of mine was turned into a bandit after defending himself against a hostile survivor, and was then slain on sight by another survivor minutes later after his skin had switched (and after he had just found a GPS, RangeFinder, and other goodies).

I think spawning players all over the map would pretty much get rid of the Cherno Deathmatch problem. Players would have to invest more real life time in the game to get to places with other players, so they are less likely to waste that time by getting into pointless firefights.

I definitely do not want players to be able to keep things after they die; that would defeat the purpose of the game and destroy the atmosphere and get rid of the intense emotion that Day Z can create (if you want to keep stuff after you die, pitch a tent).

I wish people would stop with all this "carebear" namecalling crap. The fact is that I don't see myself EVER teaming up with randoms again like I did earlier in Day Z; moreover I will probably just kill people on sight (or tell them to get moving under threat of death) because I don't plan on losing my character that has been alive for over a week to some survivor looking to steal my stuff. This means no more random cooperation, and I think this is bad overall for Day Z.

[/quote']

Just because you're sick of it, and came up with a nice frank reason why, doesn't mean its going to, or in need of, change.

[fackstah 31]

i think we need to do the carebear countdown and look to the sky's for a bright light as the carebears decend upon chernarus and bring us lolipops rainbows and fucking sunshine OK ?

lol

[Mjolnir (DayZ) 1]

I'm honestly getting kind of sick of this "anti game" talk about how Day Z is supposed to "accurately simulate an apocalypse" or how it is supposed to not encourage any kind of player behavior over another. The fact is that this game IS turning into Cherno/Elektro deathmatch' date=' and now that the COD/BF3 meatgrinder crowd are playing Day Z it is only going to get worse.

The fact is that the bandit transition provided a very interesting and unique gameplay element, and it was one of the major and DEFINING things about Day Z in its pre 1.60 iteration (I realize the bandit skin was not present at the beginning either). It made you think twice about killing someone for no good reason, because it would have consequences of some kind at a later time. I realize no such transition would occur in a "real zombie apocalypse," (which is quite honestly not a situation that would ever arise anyway) but the fact is that it prevented people from mindlessly slaughtering each other.

Now I know the bandit system was flawed; A friend of mine was turned into a bandit after defending himself against a hostile survivor, and was then slain on sight by another survivor minutes later after his skin had switched (and after he had just found a GPS, RangeFinder, and other goodies).

I think spawning players all over the map would pretty much get rid of the Cherno Deathmatch problem. Players would have to invest more real life time in the game to get to places with other players, so they are less likely to waste that time by getting into pointless firefights.

I definitely do not want players to be able to keep things after they die; that would defeat the purpose of the game and destroy the atmosphere and get rid of the intense emotion that Day Z can create (if you want to keep stuff after you die, pitch a tent).

I wish people would stop with all this "carebear" namecalling crap. The fact is that I don't see myself EVER teaming up with randoms again like I did earlier in Day Z; moreover I will probably just kill people on sight (or tell them to get moving under threat of death) because I don't plan on losing my character that has been alive for over a week to some survivor looking to steal my stuff. This means no more random cooperation, and I think this is bad overall for Day Z.

[/quote']

Just because you're sick of it, and came up with a nice frank reason why, doesn't mean its going to, or in need of, change.

If people become bored of a game and do not find it fun they are less likely to play it. The issue here is whether or not Rocket wants this mod to actually last or not. "Need" has nothing to do with it. Rocket needs to figure out what the actual "purpose" of this game is and what actual behavior he wants occurring in the game. So far he has tried to leave it open and attempted to leave all avenues open to the players. However, this is not really possible, because no matter what he does he is in some way encouraging a certain playstyle. If you take bandit skins out you have a game that does NOT encourage teamwork (and therefore teamwork is much less likely to occur), but if you leave bandit skins in you have a somewhat flawed system. Rocket is trying both ways, and I happen to like bandit skins a bit better.

Essentially, you can't have a completely nihilistic attitude about the game. No matter what Rocket does he CANNOT leave all avenues open to players without favoring some over others (such as cooperation over conflict). In other words, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Obviously this is an alpha though, so experimentation with gameplay elements should be occurring.

Also just to be clear the reason I don't like the Cherno deathmatch is because it makes the areas that I spend time in completely desolate; I stay the hell away from the south coast like any smart person, and at this point the game basically feels like single player (or coop if I am playing with a friend). I rarely ever encounter anyone up north, and when I do it is usually in passing without any interaction (I lay low and let them pass without seeing me). I don't fight in the Cherno Bean Wars.

[Bandit Hunter 29]

If people become bored of a game and do not find it fun they are less likely to play it. The issue here is whether or not Rocket wants this mod to actually last or not. "Need" has nothing to do with it. Rocket needs to figure out what the actual "purpose" of this game is and what actual behavior he wants occurring in the game. So far he has tried to leave it open and attempted to leave all avenues open to the players. However' date=' this is not really possible, because no matter what he does he is in some way encouraging a certain playstyle. If you take bandit skins out you have a game that does NOT encourage teamwork (and therefore teamwork is much less likely to occur), but if you leave bandit skins in you have a somewhat flawed system. Rocket is trying both ways, and I happen to like bandit skins a bit better.

Essentially, you can't have a completely nihilistic attitude about the game. No matter what Rocket does he CANNOT leave all avenues open to players without favoring some over others (such as cooperation over conflict). In other words, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Obviously this is an alpha though, so experimentation with gameplay elements should be occurring.

[/quote']

You seem to be unaware of the 94,500 unique players who find, or express, NO problem with Rocket's vision for his OWN mod. He is under NO obligation to cater to anyone but himself. We did not pay a single dime for DayZ.

His "inability to choose favoring a group" is why thousands upon thousands of people LOVE this experiment. It is NOT a traditional video game.

Here is a quote from Rocket: "It's obvious from the database those people who are adjusting to the "anti-game" environment and those who aren't."

He is not going to cater to any group. Either you like the way he's running HIS mod, you adjust, or you don't. Its your freedom to come here on the forum and complain. You're going to catch a LOT of Flak, because its my freedom to do so.

[unsobill 0]

My 2 cents on term "Carebear":

term "Carebear" adds to the balance of DayZ universe. This term first was used by developer himself and got quickly adopted by players who enjoy teamwork more then banditism and violence; under no circumstances players or forum activists should be restricted or threatened by ANYONE; there is absolutely no reason anyone should be afraid to use this term period.

[Bandit Hunter 29]

My 2 cents on term "Carebear":

term "Carebear" adds to the balance of DayZ universe. This term first was used by developer himself and got quickly adopted by players who enjoy teamwork more then banditism and violence; under no circumstances players or forum activists should be restricted or threatened by ANYONE; there is absolutely no reason anyone should be afraid to use this term period.

A Carebear isn't somebody who prefers teamwork over being a bandit. Its somebody who sits on the forum crying about a lack of forced leverage against bandits.

[fackstah 31]

*CLEARS THROAT*

A CARE BEAR IS :

The Care Bears are characters created by American Greetings in 1981 for use on greeting cards. The original artwork for the cards was painted by artist Elena Kucharik. In 1983, Kenner turned the Care Bears into plush teddy bears. The Care Bears appeared in their own TV specials called The Care Bears in the Land Without Feelings (1983) and The Care Bears Battle the Freeze Machine (1984). They also had their own television series from 1985 to 1988, in addition to three feature films: The Care Bears Movie (1985), Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation (1986), and The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland (1987).

Each Care Bear comes in a different color and has a specialized insignia on its belly that represents its duty and personality. This insignia was known as their "tummy symbol." However, the movie Care Bears: Oopsy Does It! renamed them "belly badges". Adding to the Care Bear family are the "Care Bear Cousins", which feature a lion, rabbit, penguin, raccoon, and other such animals created in the same style as the teddy bears.

In 2002, the bears were reintroduced with new toys. Made by Play-Along Toys, the new toys offered features such as illuminated bellies upon touch, aerobic bears, and glow-in-the-dark bears. As part of this comeback, the Bears have appeared in two computer-animated movies: Care Bears: Journey to Joke-a-lot (2004) and The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie (2005). In 2007, the franchise celebrated its 25th anniversary; another relaunch took place, as well as the release of Care Bears: Oopsy Does It!.

In mid-2011, AG announced a revival TV animated series titled "Care Bears: Welcome to Care-a-Lot". The premiere of the series will be utilizing "30 years of caring". It will premiere on The Hub on June 2, 2012.

As of 2011, Care Bears merchandise is still being marketed. During 2008 and 2009, Canada's Cookie Jar Group and France's MoonScoop Group attempted to acquire the franchise from AGC, with no apparent success.

[Bazeel 0]

This seems like an excellent reason to team up with an established clan, in my opinion. These people are working towards a cohesive team environment, and are usually well able to defend themselves against hostiles or possible threats. Perhaps OP should look into one of these organizations, rather than lament the direction the mod is going in?

Also, as a note: many people are, in fact, moving north. Therefore, arguments of feeling like a single player game are invalidated. If you are there, chances are, someone else may be, also.

Pardon any issues with the composure of this post, I'm currently working off a tablet.

[Mjolnir (DayZ) 1]

If people become bored of a game and do not find it fun they are less likely to play it. The issue here is whether or not Rocket wants this mod to actually last or not. "Need" has nothing to do with it. Rocket needs to figure out what the actual "purpose" of this game is and what actual behavior he wants occurring in the game. So far he has tried to leave it open and attempted to leave all avenues open to the players. However' date=' this is not really possible, because no matter what he does he is in some way encouraging a certain playstyle. If you take bandit skins out you have a game that does NOT encourage teamwork (and therefore teamwork is much less likely to occur), but if you leave bandit skins in you have a somewhat flawed system. Rocket is trying both ways, and I happen to like bandit skins a bit better.

Essentially, you can't have a completely nihilistic attitude about the game. No matter what Rocket does he CANNOT leave all avenues open to players without favoring some over others (such as cooperation over conflict). In other words, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Obviously this is an alpha though, so experimentation with gameplay elements should be occurring.

[/quote']

You seem to be unaware of the 94,500 unique players who find, or express, NO problem with Rocket's vision for his OWN mod. He is under NO obligation to cater to anyone but himself. We did not pay a single dime for DayZ.

His "inability to choose favoring a group" is why thousands upon thousands of people LOVE this experiment. It is NOT a traditional video game.

Here is a quote from Rocket: "It's obvious from the database those people who are adjusting to the "anti-game" environment and those who aren't."

He is not going to cater to any group. Either you like the way he's running HIS mod, you adjust, or you don't. Its your freedom to come here on the forum and complain. You're going to catch a LOT of Flak, because its my freedom to do so.

You completely missed my point. My point was that people flocked to Day Z because of what it WAS, and that it is BECOMING something DIFFERENT. I personally love what Day Z was like, but now it is heavily leaning towards deathmatch at the coastal towns. I have no problem with the unforgiving game mechanics, but I do have a problem with half the server slots being taken up by people screwing around and shooting each other for no reason because they are freshly spawned and have nothing to lose.

My point is this: Yes, Day Z did amass a giant number of players in a short time. It does have very unique gameplay, and that is what attracted me to it as well. However, if it heads more in the Cherno Deathmatch direction people will STOP playing it because they will get bored. I enjoyed the thrilling PVP interactions earlier in the mod, where you could trust others cautiously. Now you basically have to shoot on sight.

Obviously whatever Rocket decides to do is his decision, but if he doesn't do something about the current situation the game is going to turn into something different from that which attracted us initially. I think spawning new players at random locations on the continent would achieve this pretty well without having to add in the bandit mechanic again.

And please don't lecture me with this "I didn't pay for this game so I can't give feedback" crap. This game is an ALPHA; feedback is a vital part of the game. I have every right to voice my opinion on this public forum even if I have not contributed monetarily to the project. Of course I do not expect rocket to agree or listen to me, but I state my opinion nonetheless. If you cannot deal with other people providing FEEDBACK DURING AN ALPHA without ATTACKING THEM for daring to question the creator of the mod then I think you need to meditate for a bit on what the purpose of an ALPHA and COMMUNITY FORUMS are for.

[gizm0 96]

Maybe one option would be having a database that is accessible to every player and tracks things such as protecting players, killing players, healing players, killing "bandits", as well as other factors. This way its not just one value controlling if a player is worth trusting or not, as well as keeps the player factor a bit of a risk but a controlled risk that allows players to make a better calculated risk.

[Bandit Hunter 29]

This seems like an excellent reason to team up with an established clan' date=' in my opinion. These people are working towards a cohesive team environment, and are usually well able to defend themselves against hostiles or possible threats. Perhaps OP should look into one of these organizations, rather than lament the direction the mod is going in?

Also, as a note: many people are, in fact, moving north. Therefore, arguments of feeling like a single player game are invalidated. If you are there, chances are, someone else may be, also.

Pardon any issues with the composure of this post, I'm currently working off a tablet.

[/quote']

Ding ding ding ding. Bingo, there's what we want, THIS is the solution. There is no hand of god that is going to weigh the game against Bandits. That does NOT mean you can't group up a milita, and control the issue yourself. THAT is the type of behavior the experiment is geared for. THAT is emergent gameplay.

BINGO!

No sarcasm, for the record. You give me hope.

[number7 1]

I agree completely!

lets rename Cherno to hug-town and electro to Happy place

now, anyone who points their gun at another survivor will be perma banned from every server, because bandits are bad and they killed me when i had good gear :'(

survivors who are nice should get love points, which can be spent on in-game rewards, like a hug cannon that turns all zombies it is shot at into back into normal civilians.

Also, we need a bright, happy environment, more bright pinks and light blues and such on the environment. +10 if we can replace cows and pigs and stuff with unicorns and puppies.

/sarcasm

No playstyle should be rewarded by in-game things like keeping loot after death or any of those ideas.

I was playing last night, and i found a survivor, we teamed up and worked together, and i got my RL friend online as well, our group of three went around and only killed at people we were sure, absolutely sure, had intentions to kill us. we used stealth, and chatted to people on the chat and made several allies. we looted the NW airfield because the bandit sniper there decided he liked us after we had been chatting to him for a while and he offered us to go in and loot stuff.

so we killed a heap of bandits, got a load of loot, and it was heaps fun doing it.

if you took out bandits, or started punishing bandits (with actual punishments, or lack of rewards) then i wouldn't play it anymore because the game would be heading in a direction i really dont like.

imagine if all there was to do in the game was get gear, then get more gear. PvP is the solution to that at the moment, get good gear, kill bandits and save good survivors.

the zombies are pathetic anyway, even if you toned them up in strength, they will NEVER match the threat a player can present, because they are dumb AI, and a player can think and plan

[Bazeel 0]

This seems like an excellent reason to team up with an established clan' date=' in my opinion. These people are working towards a cohesive team environment, and are usually well able to defend themselves against hostiles or possible threats. Perhaps OP should look into one of these organizations, rather than lament the direction the mod is going in?

Also, as a note: many people are, in fact, moving north. Therefore, arguments of feeling like a single player game are invalidated. If you are there, chances are, someone else may be, also.

Pardon any issues with the composure of this post, I'm currently working off a tablet.

[/quote']

Ding ding ding ding. Bingo, there's what we want, THIS is the solution. There is no hand of god that is going to weigh the game against Bandits. That does NOT mean you can't group up a milita, and control the issue yourself. THAT is the type of behavior the experiment is geared for. THAT is emergent gameplay.

BINGO!

No sarcasm, for the record. You give me hope.

Thank you. Simply tossing in my two cents on the issue. I too played as a fearful survivor for the longest time, before teaming up with the [NwO] at ground level. As it stands, they do a pretty decent job of controlling a large area of land and gathering up a fair amount of supplies to distribute amongst their members...new and old alike. This is the sort of teamplay I was looking for. A well-organized 'militant' team. Unfortunately, many do not seem to understand that this mod is what you make of it, not what it makes -for- you. This is not Left4Dead. This is DayZ. While I have my own issues with some of the features, this is 'The Road' in comparison to 'Mad Max'. It is brutal, visceral, and indicative of human nature. The strong survive (longer), and the weak end up dropping the game after a week or so of play, to go play TDM or CTF on their Modern Warfare servers. For some reason, I'm entirely okay with that.

[Bandit Hunter 29]

This seems like an excellent reason to team up with an established clan' date=' in my opinion. These people are working towards a cohesive team environment, and are usually well able to defend themselves against hostiles or possible threats. Perhaps OP should look into one of these organizations, rather than lament the direction the mod is going in?

Also, as a note: many people are, in fact, moving north. Therefore, arguments of feeling like a single player game are invalidated. If you are there, chances are, someone else may be, also.

Pardon any issues with the composure of this post, I'm currently working off a tablet.

[/quote']

Ding ding ding ding. Bingo, there's what we want, THIS is the solution. There is no hand of god that is going to weigh the game against Bandits. That does NOT mean you can't group up a milita, and control the issue yourself. THAT is the type of behavior the experiment is geared for. THAT is emergent gameplay.

BINGO!

No sarcasm, for the record. You give me hope.

Thank you. Simply tossing in my two cents on the issue. I too played as a fearful survivor for the longest time, before teaming up with the [NwO] at ground level. As it stands, they do a pretty decent job of controlling a large area of land and gathering up a fair amount of supplies to distribute amongst their members...new and old alike. This is the sort of teamplay I was looking for. A well-organized 'militant' team. Unfortunately, many do not seem to understand that this mod is what you make of it, not what it makes -for- you. This is not Left4Dead. This is DayZ. While I have my own issues with some of the features, this is 'The Road' in comparison to 'Mad Max'. It is brutal, visceral, and indicative of human nature. The strong survive (longer), and the weak end up dropping the game after a week or so of play, to go play TDM or CTF on their Modern Warfare servers. For some reason, I'm entirely okay with that.

Now now, your stretching your luck. Mad Max doesn't have any care bears either ;)

[LastShenanigan 8]

People always seem to forget that bandits also comes in teams. Do they get to keep their AKs on respawn because they were team players?

[Bandit Hunter 29]

People always seem to forget that bandits also comes in teams. Do they get to keep their AKs on respawn because they were team players?

Sure they can, so can any survivor group.