Incentivize cooperation

[Bal Sofs Tihl 7]

In efforts to curb consquence-free killing, it seems most people are resorting to artificially punishing players. This is bad. No one should be punished for doing the things they want and an artifical system for identifying bandits does not really fit this game, as has already beed discovered. You also do not want to limit the freedom for players to do what they want. This is supposed to be more a simulation than a game; so, things like artificially enforced safe-zones do not fit and are super lame.

The preferable alternative is to incentivize and reward other playstyles. The rewards for killing on sight are obvious and lucrative. Grouping and cooperation do have benefits, but they are far outweighed by those of excessive banditry. Realism being a paramount objective in DayZ makes artificial gameplay mechanics undesirable. In the name of simulation, it can be argued that players should simply play in a more realistic fasion, regardless of game mechanics. Anyone who has been on the internet at any time ever knows this will not work. The majority of players will always maximize their gain and advantage as far as gameplay mechanics allow at the expense of immersion or role-playing.

So, the goal should be to find some realistic, natural way to incentivize group play and cooperation to the point where the benefits in gameplay mechanics are competative to those of banditry. In this thread, D3lit3 suggested an idea where players are given a stat bonus when in proximity to other players. That thread is about other stuff, as well, and I think that this possible game mechanic should have a discussion all its own.

So, lets evaluate this idea.

First, realism: does real-life provide parallels that would justify this sort of game mechanic? I posted some of this information in the above mentioned thread:

Negative effects of isolation.

Social Isolation May Have A Negative Effect On Intellectual Abilities

"After controlling for a wide range of demographic variables, including age, education, race/ethnicity, gender, marital status and income, as well as for physical health and depression, the researchers looked at the connection between frequency of social contact and level of mental function on the mini-mental exam.

The higher the level of participants' social interaction, researchers found, the better their cognitive functioning. This relationship was reliable for all age groups, from the youngest through the oldest. "

In a second experiment:

"We found that short-term social interaction lasting for just 10 minutes boosted participants' intellectual performance as much as engaging in so-called 'intellectual' activities for the same amount of time,"

Social Isolation Kills, But How and Why?

"Social isolation has been shown repeatedly to prospectively predict mortality and serious morbidity both in general population samples (2) and in individuals with established morbidity (3, 4), especially coronary heart disease (1). The magnitude of risk associated with social isolation is comparable with that of cigarette smoking and other major biomedical and psychosocial risk factors."

Yes! Social interaction could be used to realistically incentivize cooperation and group play. There is real-life, scientific evidence supporting this type of game mechanic. Players do not feel the psychological effects of their DayZ life because they (hopefully) get all the social interaction they need to maintain their health when they log off. This is comparible to having having a character's blood regenerate when the player is logged-off and it is undesirable. Incentivizing social interaction would not only provide a manner in which to promote group play and cooperation, but it would even make the game more realistic.

Now, we proceed onto the next part: balancing. The benefits need to be competative with the benefits of outright banditry. Current advantages to group play should be factored in when determing the impact of this game mechanic. The goal is to make this bonus as minimal as possible while still being effective. As mentioned above:

"Social isolation has been shown repeatedly to prospectively predict mortality and serious morbidity both in general population samples (2) and in individuals with established morbidity (3, 4), especially coronary heart disease (1). The magnitude of risk associated with social isolation is comparable with that of cigarette smoking and other major biomedical and psychosocial risk factors."

This provides a real-life parellel within which a bonus can be worked: health. The health management system in DayZ provides many avenues for explotation in designing this mechanic. Here are some quick and dirty brainstormed ideas:

When in the proximity of other players:

*Eating restores more blood

*Characters stay full and hydrated longer

*Effects of fatigue (hand shaking, etc.) are reduced

*Effects of pain are reduced.

*Effects of low-blood are reduced

*Effects of low temperature are reduced

*Character loses temperature slower

*Temperature regenerates

*Character movement speed is increased

Obviously, some of those ideas are better than others and all or any that get used would have to be carefully balanced in order to achieve the desired results. The other link I posted also mentioned that socialization can have cognitive benefits. I do not have any ideas on how this effect could be simulated. In fact, simulation might not be necessary at all, as the real-life effect could possibly be seen in players' brain naturally by grouping.

This is just the very begining of an idea. However, it meets criteria for a realistic and unintrusive gameplay mechanic which could add another layer of sophistication to the game and improve the environment of consequence-free killing without punishing anyone for how they choose to play or limiting a player's freedom to choose.

[Survivorman (DayZ) 0]

I think looking at incentives is the exact way to go.

First I hypothesize that there's two main ways to play this game:

A "realistic PvE" approach: "I want to survive, and cooperate if possible, but I will kill you if I have to."

And the "realistic PvP" approach "I want to survive/grief and I will kill you to obtain my goals(one of which may be simply to see what color your blood is), preferably with a bit of backstabbing first"

One of the incentives for playstyle one is a strong social capital in the community. In the beginning this was the case, both due to the bandit skin, but also because there where so few players, people recognized your name and where wary on sight. People still used approach two, but with only a small percentage using this approach, number one was still dominant.

At the moment the social capital of the community is in decline. Why shouldn't it be, we're all selfish beings. Three things happened: The community exploded, Deer stands provided military grade weapons, and the bandit skin disappeared. I cant give you the numbers, but I can say that even the "friendly" Nordic servers are now taking a turn for playstyle number two. Those who want to try to survive as long as possible will avoid other players, travel more or less with radio silence and for every bullet to the head slowly drift towards playstyle two. Playstyle two on the other hand will enjoy a boom. Risking your hard earned AK isn't so bad when you know there's tons more out there now. Probably on a fresh corpse. And the amount of victims prepared to hesitantly trust you has increased with the survivor skin and tag being permanent.

Now I'm not pro or con PVP. It should definitely be a part of the game. But I don't buy the whole "If it actually was a zombie apocalypse you'd spray and pray at any given opportunity". If you died, you'd be dead. If you survived, you'd build relationships to people who would recognize you. Social capital would thrive or most likely you would be gunned down in the name of justice. Society hinges on you needing the people around you to better your life or survive, and it would apply here as well.

I like your ideas, and I think they are some of the better incentives for cooperation I've heard so far. There's also the argument that making PvE harder will force people into cooperation, but that's only true if the desire of the player is to survive. If a player just wants to grief (which should be allowed) they will probably not be particularly deterred.

[Bal Sofs Tihl 7]

Making the infected more of a threat is definitely something that I agree could help promote cooperation. Firing a gun should be a weighty decision, because you know the human will not be the only problem you have to deal with.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

I was quite impressed with this post, you did a lot of research ;)

I would like for me and you to work for a common goal, I feel I have came to a just as reasonable answer for the lack of groups in game

Read my post about The team work philosophy see what you think, through it's not as well written as yours nor is it as researched. It still got a lot more support then the other post whom fell under a, "You have to feel this cause you did that" scope