The Psychology behind taking a life (long read)

[Drostan 0]

Also I think it should be noted, for the purpose of this thread that PTSD is POST traumatic stress disorder. I believe the game world itself is taking place during the traumatic stress, and that people would only exhibit PTSD after the zombie outbreak is defeated.

---

In reply to rukqoa - It is also surmised that soldiers undergo this negative psychological impact' date=' because they're expected to reintigrate into a society that both looks down upon, and scorns soldiers and the killing they perform. They do what is natural, only to be shunned by the society they need to go back in to. So again, the human mind is so complex that any simple one-cause/one-effect mechanic representing this psyche is almost insulting to the psychological community.

[/quote']

Interesting perspective, but that doesn't explain why soldiers display symptoms of PTSD before they return home (aka society).

I agree with you. My point wasn't necesarily about a soldier's PTSD, it was just that it's not fully understood. This thread is cycling too fast to keep up with.

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[Akael 2]

They should totally have people record a line screaming GO TO HELL that plays to everyone that has killed them at random intervals for about a week.

[Theonerayman 0]

The way you are dismissive of my argument without fully understanding or rebutting it, and the way you throw random events into the conversation as though they stand in place of a proper rebuttal, tells me that you really should study quite a bit more of the subject of psychology before passing an absolutist judgments on its implications and effects.

It doesn't matter if human beings are fundamentally similar; of course they are, we're the same species! The point is that each person reacts differently, even if slightly differently, to every stimuli and scenario.

Everybody has a sex drive, right? So I guess that means we all act and react to all sexual stimuli in the same manner, right? Of course not. Everybody is minutely different in each aspect of their sexuality from everyone else around them, no matter how superficially similar they may appear.

For another example, even if 99% of people experienced PTSD following traumatic events, there would still be 1% who did not; how would you implement a game mechanic reflecting that on a level that does not ruin the immersion and realism of the game for each individual player?

Simply put, you can't.

You seem to be trying to argue from some fallacious position of authority here, instead of presenting concise and rebutting comments to those who disagree, including myself, especially so far as those arguments relate to DayZ and potential changes to it.

If you want changes made to DayZ, and on the basis of psychological science, it is your obligation to prove how those would, or even could, be effective down to the individual level without compromising the realistic and immersive nature of the game.

Putting the philosopher hat back on for a moment, when the premise of your argument is that everyone is monumentally different (your words not mine) the rest of your argument crumbles under the shotty foundation. Now going back to the Psychologist, I am not saying we are JUST fundamentally the same. I am saying that man kind is far more alike than someone can understand without a great deal of study, and I am far from finished learning all that we even know which isn't even everything. And the Jonestown example is perfect here considering those 900 people couldn't have come from a more diverse group of backgrounds and places

if they tried. Those people were from everywhere. Jones had 20+ grey hound buses he took all over the country. But at the end of the day he exploited them all because he knew how to control people on a base level, because we for the most part are a lot alike (and remember there are exceptions to every rule)

[rukqoa 4]

Don't mean to cut your post short' date=' but you are wrong for a few reasons

One, presuming to know the cause of the zombie apocalypse; it may not only transfer through bites it could be airborne viral or something else.

Two, presuming there is even a cure at all and that the world can be restored to even something remotely how it was before.

Three, no matter how similar the training of soldiers are across countries, every group will have their own way of running things beyond the basic necessities. There's a reason some countries are still at constant war or even civil war amongst themselves, and it is because groups with differences tend to not get along. In a world with no geneva convention it will come down to whoever is ready to be most brutal that will come on top.

Four, following a zombie break out you wouldn't immediately try to establish order, you would try to contain or eliminate it. Having camps of concentrated people to try and survive when the outbreak is still on going would only resulted in a sudden burst of people becoming zombies if the infection or virus reaches them.

Five, upon possibly succeeding to contain the zombie outbreak, you would need to skills of people who aren't soldiers (architects, doctors, scientists, technical engineers) and the resources granted by large companies that do lots of mining, logging, and so on to create any sort of settlement beyond wood huts.

Yes soldiers can be trained in medical and trade skills but these do not make a modern society, or rebuild one.

If you couldn't save enough people in all those areas as well as people to perform menial labour (plumbing for clean water and sewage, generate electricity, collect building resources) then you couldn't recreate anything.

Trying to establish order in the midst of chaos would only get you killed, you would be better off waiting for the dust to settle and zombies to die off on their own if you didn't have the power to eliminate them completely before most of the population is reduced

[/quote']

Well, in any case, my point that trained personnel are more likely to survive an apocalyptic event stands.

If the zombie virus is airborne, my guess is people with stronger immune systems will survive. Or people who own gas masks. If the zombie virus is contact transmitted, my guess is people with big guns will survive. No matter the way you put it, soldiers come up top.

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[deweyhewson 1]

Putting the philosopher hat back on for a moment' date=' when the premise of your argument is that everyone is monumentally different (your words not mine) the rest of your argument crumbles under the shotty foundation. Now going back to the Psychologist, I am not saying we are JUST fundamentally the same. I am saying that man kind is far more alike than someone can understand without a great deal of study, and I am far from finished learning all that we even know which isn't even everything. And the Jonestown example is perfect here considering those 900 people couldn't have come from a more diverse group of backgrounds and places

if they tried. Those people were from everywhere. Jones had 20+ grey hound buses he took all over the country. But at the end of the day he exploited them all because he knew how to control people on a base level, because we for the most part are a lot alike (and remember there are exceptions to every rule)

[/quote']

Don't take this too personally, because I don't even know you, but you write and argue like a high school student who just discovered Freud and Plato. That, and your lack of basic grammar, really costs you credibility in this discussion.

Again you have failed to rebut my arguments without telling me why I am wrong, only that I am, and falling back on an unrelated, singular event in human history as though it somehow destroys the entirety of my argument.

You could have presented a compelling case here - I commented myself on the fascinating psychological implications of DayZ days ago, as I said - but the manner and style in which you have done so undermines any point you were trying to make.

All of this aside, there is but one simple point: if you want changes made to DayZ, and changes made on the basis of human psychology, it is your obligation to prove how that would be possible in a manner properly representative of that psychology without compromising the game world of DayZ. As I have pointed out before, you have, thus far, failed to do so, and no amount of dismissive statements or random references will change that.

[Drostan 0]

From what I've gathered we all seem to roughly agree on a few points.

1. Highly trained/physically capable people are obviously more likely to survive the situation at hand.

2. Psychology is smart people shit.

We have difficulty fully agreeing on these aspects:

1. How people would really behave in such a high-stress situation.

2a. Should there be a mechanic representing a character's psychological condition.

2b. If so, how would it be represented.

We're starting to move off the psychological topic, and devolving into how various militaries will deal with it, how it's started and so on. That in itself is an entire discussion warranting it's own thread.

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[Theonerayman 0]

Putting the philosopher hat back on for a moment' date=' when the premise of your argument is that everyone is monumentally different (your words not mine) the rest of your argument crumbles under the shotty foundation. Now going back to the Psychologist, I am not saying we are JUST fundamentally the same. I am saying that man kind is far more alike than someone can understand without a great deal of study, and I am far from finished learning all that we even know which isn't even everything. And the Jonestown example is perfect here considering those 900 people couldn't have come from a more diverse group of backgrounds and places

if they tried. Those people were from everywhere. Jones had 20+ grey hound buses he took all over the country. But at the end of the day he exploited them all because he knew how to control people on a base level, because we for the most part are a lot alike (and remember there are exceptions to every rule)

[/quote']

Don't take this too personally, because I don't even know you, but you write and argue like a high school student who just discovered Freud and Plato. That, and your lack of basic grammar, really costs you credibility in this discussion.

Again you have failed to rebut my arguments without telling me why I am wrong, only that I am, and falling back on an unrelated, singular event in human history as though it somehow destroys the entirety of my argument.

You could have presented a compelling case here - I commented myself on the fascinating psychological implications of DayZ days ago, as I said - but the manner and style in which you have done so undermines any point you were trying to make.

All of this aside, there is but one simple point: if you want changes made to DayZ, and changes made on the basis of human psychology, it is your obligation to prove how that would be possible in a manner properly representative of that psychology without compromising the game world of DayZ. As I have pointed out before, you have, thus far, failed to do so, and no amount of dismissive statements or random references will change that.

Whos Plato? But I jest. You say that I am failing to rebut your argument, and that I am basing all of my rebuttal on 1 case in all of human history. So lets try and add a few more instances ok. Bernie Madoff who ripped off 30 billion (yes that is a B) off of thousands because he knew how to manipulate them. The Baptist Foundation of Arizona who used the guise of Religion to fleece Millions from all sorts of people, how about Lou Perlman (yeah the guy who founded the Backstreet Boys and Nsync) Was a fantastic conman who knew exactly how to exploit people. Not only in buy millions worth of horrid boy band albums but actually conned 500 million away from people with a ponzi scheme involving his Trans Continental Savings Program. Again ALL of these cases have something common, the backgrounds of the people were from every walk of life and from in most cases all over the world. Again. We humans, aren't that different.

PS No Freudian psychoanalysts for me, don't wanna spend the time in London being psychoanalyzed myself for 2 years before I can actually work.

[rukqoa 4]

I will accept your retort because it isn't the main point of this thread' date=' and also that yes having access to those resources would definitely help. However I think you missed my point of at what point are they considered to have 'survived' because by number 5 they wouldn't have anything to do except use all their resources up and die, presuming they aren't killed earlier.

[/quote']

Errr... my earlier point is that the most likely to survive are also the ones who are most disciplined and moral. Which means less bandits and more teamwork. Well, at least less than currently in game.

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[Drostan 0]

So, back to the original topic.

DO WE NEED a mechanic to simulate a character's mental stress, or is this already simulated by the player themselves, feeling the slight pangs of remorse and self-preservation that they do?

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[zalman 1]

im like, BAM YOUR DEAD FOOL!! lololol pwned. then i move on. I cant get emotionally attached to games, only books movies and ofc lego. i play games for fun, seriosly nothing better to do and to train. i dont put any weight to my chooses and just do what i do without thinking it over.

[Theonerayman 0]

So lets try and add a few more instances ok. Bernie Madoff who ripped off 30 billion (yes that is a B) off of thousands because he knew how to manipulate them. The Baptist Foundation of Arizona who used the guise of Religion to fleece Millions from all sorts of people' date=' how about Lou Perlman (yeah the guy who founded the Backstreet Boys and Nsync) Was a fantastic conman who knew exactly how to exploit people. Not only in buy millions worth of horrid boy band albums but actually conned 500 million away from people with a ponzi scheme involving his Trans Continental Savings Program. Again ALL of these cases have something common, the backgrounds of the people were from every walk of life and from in most cases all over the world. Again. We humans, aren't that different.

[/quote']

You aren't studying Psychology.

If you are it is either in high school or you have completely misunderstood what psychology is trying to do.

Using case studies does not constitute valid evidence for generalising the behaviour of a population.

Have you even read a proper study or taken a course in statistics?

If you cannot understand what I am talking about you really need to stop posting in this thread.

I did take basic probs and stats. Not a math major, Philosophy and Psychology with a history minor. But to say that case studies cant help determine things couldn't be more wrong. The DSM IV has huge amounts of its information based ALL on MULTIPLE case studies! Also I'm not using case studies to generalize peoples behaviors, I was using examples to support my argument. If you cant understand the difference you need to go take a practical reasoning course.

[rukqoa 4]

So' date=' back to the original topic.

DO WE NEED a mechanic to simulate a character's mental stress, or is this already simulated by the player themselves, feeling the slight pangs of remorse and self-preservation that they do?

[/quote']

The real question is: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE?

There's no doubt that the mental stress involved in making life-death decisions in game is magnitudes less than in real life. But how would you even simulate that?

What they could do is increase mental stress, which would make you thirst and hunger faster. But I doubt that would change anything regarding "the bandit problem". They could (as someone mentioned in another thread) periodically scare you by having faces of your victims pop up on screen randomly, but that's not realistic either.

My solution to the no-emotion-kill problem is to just make everyone spawn without a gun and to dramatically increase zombie difficulty.

[Outlaw (DayZ) 1]

So' date=' back to the original topic.

DO WE NEED a mechanic to simulate a character's mental stress, or is this already simulated by the player themselves, feeling the slight pangs of remorse and self-preservation that they do?

[/quote']

A clear NO.

[Guest ragequitalready]

.

Edited October 25, 2012 by ragequitalready

[Theonerayman 0]

You need more than basic probs and stats to be a psychologist.

Also I'm not using case studies to generalize peoples behaviors' date=' I was using examples to support my argument. If you cant understand the difference you need to go take a practical reasoning course.

[/quote']

Well your idea you have proposed is based on generalising behaviour to create a mechanic to affect all players, so perhaps you should step up and reconsider your own practical reason which is currently devoid from this thread.

What the DSM uses case studies for are after years of extensive peer review and usually for instances that are too few in number to be studied adequately, or can't be repeated in a scientific study for ethical reasons.

So now were going ALL the way back and talking about using some system, ok. Well let me ask you this. Is it fair that we all loose our food at the same rate? Because its not up for debate that some people can just flat out go longer without food than others. What about standing out in the rain. Some people have much better immune systems than others! Some of us maybe get sick once a year, while others are sick multiple times a month! The game puts us all on the same playing field and no one thinks twice about it. This would be NO different except now its curtailing someones antisocial behavior. Using your logic of everyone being different why should I have to find food just as often as you, or someone else? Maybe I can go longer without food! Maybe my immune system is way better than yours but worse than Joe's. Is it fair that we all have to be on the same level when it comes to the chances of getting sick? We are already making sweeping generalizations about the players.

[DaPessimist 1]

This game is far from an accurate reflection of the human condition. I keep reading this nonsense that it's a "social experiment".

Give everyone a gun, and every reason to kill every person they see, and see what will happen?

I could have told you the results of that "social experiment" without the need to make a game mod.

[williamkenny-101@hotmail.co.uk 0]

I read the entire OP, and I have to say that I -largely- agree.

When I first started playing, the feeling of tension and nervousness, even fear, about killing another player was high. I strived to avoid contact and quickly made my way North away from most PvP-ers (at the time, this was back in April).

However as time has gone on my perspective on this has changed quite quickly. I've found where all the best loot spawns and set up camp with a group of 7 other friends who I know from other games and things are now fairly forumulaic for us; we farm our desired loot spots, then go hunting any nearby players. There's really no emotion in the killing any more now that the initial novelty has worn off, we simply enjoy it as a game.

Ultimately we -are- killing in self defense though, even if it is a pre-emptive defense; where is the sense in banding up with people who you don't know when you have significantly better gear than them?

If I can manage quite fine on my own, or in a group of guys I already know, where is the incentive for me not to shoot that guy charging up the hill towards us with his makarov?

However, much like the 'panic' mechanic, I don't think an artificial 'emotion' mechanic should be added. If I find myself genuinely in danger, such as being hunted (yesterday my group of 5 were hunted slowly one by one by a lone bandit who go 3 of us before running away) or being chased by zeds while running out of ammo, then I genuinely do feel a sense of panic. But with a bit of careful foresight, these situations are rare.

And increasingly rarely do I care about who I kill. If they have better gear than me, then great, time for an upgrade. If they have worse gear than me, then it's just as well because if I don't shoot them then they will shoot me.

You can't arbitrarily add some game mechanic to simulate human emotion without it coming off as cheesy or simply irritating, at least, not feasibly within the engine.

[Otleaz 3]

There is one glaring flaw in this: In real life, people don't come back to life. There are many things associated with this, but the biggest one is that it is MUCH easier to kill someone after being killed yourself. No matter what the consequences, once it happens to you, you stop caring.

[flyingmonkey (DayZ) 0]

Humans are social creatures, there is a reason solitary confinement in prisons works.

If you were to run around killing everyone you came across, as people do in this game, you wouldn't only have the guilt of killing people - but the extreme loneliness of the entire situation would make the effect worse.

That guy you just took out without him even knowing? Could have kept you company for a little while - sharing stories, helping you raid, watching your back. Eventually, living weeks alone will drive you just as insane as PTSD would, and that's even without the need to kill someone.

People claim that they feel raw emotion when deciding when they are going to kill another player, the only reason those people pull the trigger is because they know the guy they're about to take out will be all set on the beach in 10 seconds ready to start over. This game doesn't even come close to affecting your emotions as real life. Sure, you get attached to your pixels and would do anything to keep them safe, but taking out another guy is just not comparable to real life. You cannot do it in a game.

In the end, I believe it boils down to this:

The game is too easy to survive alone.

There needs to be a lot more zombies, make teaming up a practical requirement. A guy with a CZ who sits and takes out a survivor from afar does take some risks, but when you looks at the populations of the servers and the size of the map, it's only blind luck that someone is going to get the jump on him doing his thing.

Make dead players attract zombies - While they shouldn't go Usain Bolt towards the corpse, they should at least make their merely way toward it, making it that much riskier to loot the corpse.

For a short while after killing a player, reduce his aiming accuracy - Don't make it gamebreaking though. This is about as "forced" as I feel comfortable with, simulating the thoughts going through the players head into his character. We all know that no matter what you are thinking as a player, you are fine at aiming a reticule at whatever is on your screen. This would reflect those thoughts running through your own head, even just slightly.

Just a few ideas that came to my head while reading the thread, I agree with the OP, but not the ways that people have suggested to implement it.

We have been a social species for millenia, it wont change just because there are suddenly less of us.

[tomasz.k.gac@gmail.com 0]

I know that there were 2-day long respawns early in the game (and AFAIR they were hated), but giving a player time penalty after death would make him value his life more, and probably also consider other player's feelings, like he would in real life.

Let's say, if you died before the average life expectancy, you would get a 30 min long respawn time. If you didn't - you spawn immediately. This would stop freshly respawned players from rampaging at elektro/cherno + wouldn't destroy the experience for well equipped players which would also be afraid of dying because they'd lose their gear.