Why Bandit skins are a terrible idea.

[discombobulated 27]

If you don't want Bandit skin, don't kill people... How is this hard?

Yeah you might end up dead, but you aren't a murderer. "I was defending myself" Well, don't... Just die and regear.

I have almost 30,000 humanity and zero bandit kills and zero murders. If you get bandit skin, that's your fault, sorry.

So in your eyes anyone that shoots a gun at any other person is a murderer and a bandit? And you would assume the same IRL? Someone defending themselves counts as a cold blooded killer? Sorry but I disagree completely. I don't shoot on sight, I don't go looking for bandits or anyone to kill, but if someone threatens to put me back probably 20 or more hours on my character then I'm going to do anything I can to stop them.

Why should I lose everything just because someone likes being a bandit, and wearing the skin, whereas I don't? If everyone did what you suggest then the game would just be bandits, and medics that heal the bandits.

I don't mind starting again, it's quite refreshing and fun, but I have still put a lot of effort into my character, so until someone can best me or gets the drop, I will be keeping him alive the way the game intended me too (By shooting those who shoot at me).

The problem with this example is that you consider the second person shooting on sight a foregone conclusion. If this is how humans really worked on an individual level, we'd have died out a long time ago. IRL it's much easier to survive as a pair than as an individual so your example is unlikely to be the norm for interaction between individuals (groups will probably still work as you described).

In DayZ, shoot on sight was almost a forgone conclusion but only because that was the action most likely to result in a net positive for the initial shooter. The only consequence of shooting was a few bullets and the unlikely chance that the person shooting second would somehow win the firefight. If you add enough consequence to the act of shooting someone to tip the balance and make a net negative the most likely outcome, your initial shooter probably won't shoot. Skins and humanity, if implemented correctly, will help tip the balance.

Lol but humans have been trying to kill each other off since the beginning of time, I'm not saying everyone is bad, and I'm not saying that this WOULD happen. But deep down we are all animals, we all have that will to survive, and if the first person you meet in an unfriendly world tries to kill you, everyone else you see then becomes another potential assailant out for blood.

The problem being that there IS no consequence in this situation to killing someone, it is the easiest way to survive, except for as you said, grouping with people. But until characters are given some reason to travel as a group, (maybe give people skill-sets, but I don't know, I don't necessarily want to be unable to take down a barrier because I'm not the right class), then this will be the norm for this game.

[ZTrainz 21]

@Silly

I really like the addiction idea. Katniss also brought up more debilitating injuries. I think these two ideas, along with skins and humanity can be combined to make each and every firefight a very complex decision.

You mention that the pk tagging would just change the game mode from FFA DM to TDM. What game mode do you think we should move to? What is your ideal PvP state?

You say that you want a reason not to KoS but the actions that you admit to sing a different tune. Here's your reason for not blowing up clueless newbies with (probably) duped satchel charges: surviving as someone who doesn't shoot first is tough in DayZ - man up and take the challenge. No reward that the game gives you for not killing will compare to the amusement that currently drives your "banditry." Consequences might but you seem unwilling to accept any that have teeth. There are many other games out there that let you kill players for amusement and without consequence.

You're right... branding people bandit or hero won't ever work perfectly. The kicker is that if it does achieve perfection in marking players' tendency to pk it won't work. Let me explain...

I mentioned development of the skin/humanity system several times because it will need a LOT of it before it's really viable as a permanent system. The bandit and hero thresholds will have to be structured so that they are resistant, but not immune to manipulation. The system should allow players to game it a little and maintain a middle ground. Back to UO... the red flag didn't turn on until you hit 5 murders and your murder count decayed sloooowly over time. It allowed "good" players to kill out of necessity but if you killed on a daily basis you'd go red pretty quick - much quicker than you could lose even one murder count (I never macroed off murder counts but I recall it being around 24 hours of play time to lose a single count). It also allowed a lot of players to ride the line intentionally. Basically you knew the serial killers on sight but you could never really trust anyone.

For this middle ground to exist (and by extension this lack of complete trust), the hero skin should be almost impossible to get through normal play. It should be something that requires focus and effort.

Lol but humans have been trying to kill each other off since the beginning of time, I'm not saying everyone is bad, and I'm not saying that this WOULD happen. But deep down we are all animals, we all have that will to survive, and if the first person you meet in an unfriendly world tries to kill you, everyone else you see then becomes another potential assailant out for blood.

The problem being that there IS no consequence in this situation to killing someone, it is the easiest way to survive, except for as you said, grouping with people. But until characters are given some reason to travel as a group, (maybe give people skill-sets, but I don't know, I don't necessarily want to be unable to take down a barrier because I'm not the right class), then this will be the norm for this game.

You're right. We've been trying to kill each other forever but usually it's for much less valid reasons than preservation of self. KoS in a real world scenario is a huge if. Even animals know that risking injury or death from fighting is a bad idea without a very powerful motivation. I really think that KoS would be the exception rather than the rule in an actual apocalypse.

In any case, I brought it up to illustrate that DayZ is absolutely not representative of a real apocalyptic scenario. You just can't replicate the full range of human motivation and interaction, or the multitude of factors that influence them, in a game. Therefore, if you want your game to be more than FFA DM with zombies you have to put artificial systems in place to influence player behavior.

How's about we just give every CD key a single life. It'll be WAY more realistic that way.

[SillySil 295]

@Silly

I really like the addiction idea. Katniss also brought up more debilitating injuries. I think these two ideas, along with skins and humanity can be combined to make each and every firefight a very complex decision.

Finally someone who speaks my language. Complex decision is the idea.

You mention that the pk tagging would just change the game mode from FFA DM to TDM. What game mode do you think we should move to? What is your ideal PvP state?

I'd say a lot of gray area. Like there can be people who dedicate themselves to banditry and wear the bandit skin on voluntarily, which could lessen the downsides a bit. That way you'd have bandits who suffer greater consequences but don't show their intentions and those who do show their intentions but don't suffer as much because of killing people.

There could be also dedicated peace keepers. Didn't really think about the mechanic behind that yet.

You say that you want a reason not to KoS but the actions that you admit to sing a different tune. Here's your reason for not blowing up clueless newbies with (probably) duped satchel charges: surviving as someone who doesn't shoot first is tough in DayZ - man up and take the challenge. No reward that the game gives you for not killing will compare to the amusement that currently drives your "banditry." Consequences might but you seem unwilling to accept any that have teeth. There are many other games out there that let you kill players for amusement and without consequence.

The problem with being friendly is that you just put yourself at a disadvantage. That disadvantage adds to the difficulty but does it really give you a challenge? Interacting with other people is a lottery in DayZ. You're not being put to a test, you just roll dices. And I'm not talking about sneaking up on people and controlling situation. There's gonna be a moment when you turn your back towards them. And then, even if you are awesome at the game. The dices roll. I sometimes put myself at a disadvantage or just don't use overpowered weapons. But that's because the game offers me a challenge where my skills are being tested. How good I am. Not my dices.

You're right... branding people bandit or hero won't ever work perfectly. The kicker is that if it does achieve perfection in marking players' tendency to pk it won't work. Let me explain...

I mentioned development of the skin/humanity system several times because it will need a LOT of it before it's really viable as a permanent system. The bandit and hero thresholds will have to be structured so that they are resistant, but not immune to manipulation. The system should allow players to game it a little and maintain a middle ground. Back to UO... the red flag didn't turn on until you hit 5 murders and your murder count decayed sloooowly over time. It allowed "good" players to kill out of necessity but if you killed on a daily basis you'd go red pretty quick - much quicker than you could lose even one murder count (I never macroed off murder counts but I recall it being around 24 hours of play time to lose a single count). It also allowed a lot of players to ride the line intentionally. Basically you knew the serial killers on sight but you could never really trust anyone.

For this middle ground to exist (and by extension this lack of complete trust), the hero skin should be almost impossible to get through normal play. It should be something that requires focus and effort.

I'm all for gray area. Imo both skins are too easy to get. Hero especially. But the bandit skin too. What if you're not a bandit but you were forced to defend yourself against non bandits? Then you get killed on sight as punishment for not dieing earlier. Now you can either just be a bandit or try to gain humanity by living in the woods. Some kind of penalty that doesn't involve branding would allow more middle ground. Imo skins are a flawed design and just a wrong way of approaching the issue.

[jdz (DayZ) 238]

You only pointed out bugs and glitches, not hot they were actually a bad thing.

I was playing when there were only 10,000 bandits ingame, this was before bandit skins were taken away and they worked fine.

It meant that I could get my PVP fix whilst others could do their surviving thing

[Just a Goat 25]

ITT bandits whining about KOS mentality? wtf? you mad because survivors now have a chance to fight back? not used to it huh?

btw: there is a lot less KOS since the bandit skin, but now the people that get killed are the ones that deserve it.

Read the post above yours.

I swear, reading comprehension in these forums is awful.

[discombobulated 27]

You're right. We've been trying to kill each other forever but usually it's for much less valid reasons than preservation of self. KoS in a real world scenario is a huge if. Even animals know that risking injury or death from fighting is a bad idea without a very powerful motivation. I really think that KoS would be the exception rather than the rule in an actual apocalypse.

In any case, I brought it up to illustrate that DayZ is absolutely not representative of a real apocalyptic scenario. You just can't replicate the full range of human motivation and interaction, or the multitude of factors that influence them, in a game. Therefore, if you want your game to be more than FFA DM with zombies you have to put artificial systems in place to influence player behavior.

How's about we just give every CD key a single life. It'll be WAY more realistic that way.

I agree with you, the game isn't realistic, but it is a lot more so than anything else out there. Maybe I invest too much into it to try and make it more realistic for me. I actually play my character the way I would try to survive through a zombie apocalypse. I know a lot of people don't, and that means the game becomes unbalanced in favour of being a FFA DM. The thing is that the skin system is broken, and shouldn't even be in the game in the first place.

You could still have the same sort of "perks" without the skins, but for me the whole attitude changes when you "know" someone is a bandit/hero/survivor. (You never really know at the moment, because the system is buggy). If someone is a survivor, then seeing someone in a bandit skin will make it more likely (for me anyway) that they will just be shot on sight. Yet you can get the bandit skin as you said for just defending yourself against someone trying to kill you.

The hero skin is the worst, considering you can just "farm" your heroic deeds, meaning that some heroes are actually bandits in disguise. You might unknowingly be trusting a bandit, waiting to shoot you in the back as soon as you turn around. The survivors are neither good or bad, well, at that time anyway.

None of this even factors in the account that people can just change their skin to something else. Such as if a hero pick up a Ghillie suit, he would then drop his hero clothes, if a bandit picks those up, he has pretty much free reign to do what he wants. On the other side, a bandit picks up a Ghillie, is he good or bad? how do you tell unless you actively see him change from bandit to Ghillie?

I don't disagree that maybe adding something to try and balance it out in a better way would be nice, but skins are not the way forward. If nothing else it removes a lot of fear factor from the game when you see someone for what they are.

[TheGrapist18 9]

Perhaps if there was a way to holster all weapons? As it is right now, if someone looks at you they are also aiming at you...does not make for a nice meetup for sure.

I do think if ammo was more scarce folks would be less inclined to just fire it off without thinking.

Double tap control to lower gun. I scream this 10x to a survivor i run into an never take my eyes off of him in every confrontation

[Axz 30]

How can anyone possible complain that it's a BAD thing? If you're killing people then your potential targets have the right to know that you are almost certainly going to kill them, you may not like it but it's true, the same way we don't like that you have the right to kill us for our stuff or even for (and I quote) "Target Practice".

If you got it through a bug or glitch or whatever then yes that is a shame and it's not fair, but remember it is still in alpha, so as Aristotle once said "Shit happens".

But yes there as to be a obvious visual way to tell if someone is a bandit or not, doesn't have to be a headscarf, but something that you can see as easily as you see the bandit him/herself.

[ZTrainz 21]

Finally someone who speaks my language. Complex decision is the idea.

I'd say a lot of gray area. Like there can be people who dedicate themselves to banditry and wear the bandit skin on voluntarily, which could lessen the downsides a bit. That way you'd have bandits who suffer greater consequences but don't show their intentions and those who do show their intentions but don't suffer as much because of killing people.

There could be also dedicated peace keepers. Didn't really think about the mechanic behind that yet.

The problem with being friendly is that you just put yourself at a disadvantage. That disadvantage adds to the difficulty but does it really give you a challenge? Interacting with other people is a lottery in DayZ. You're not being put to a test, you just roll dices. And I'm not talking about sneaking up on people and controlling situation. There's gonna be a moment when you turn your back towards them. And then, even if you are awesome at the game. The dices roll. I sometimes put myself at a disadvantage or just don't use overpowered weapons. But that's because the game offers me a challenge where my skills are being tested. How good I am. Not my dices.

I'm all for gray area. Imo both skins are too easy to get. Hero especially. But the bandit skin too. What if you're not a bandit but you were forced to defend yourself against non bandits? Then you get killed on sight as punishment for not dieing earlier. Now you can either just be a bandit or try to gain humanity by living in the woods. Some kind of penalty that doesn't involve branding would allow more middle ground. Imo skins are a flawed design and just a wrong way of approaching the issue.

You say that you want a lot of gray area. I've pointed out how a properly designed and adjusted skin system can help to add some gray. But too much gray and you have the complete lack of trust and KoS that we saw prior to skins being reintroduced.

Not shooting on sight does put you at a disadvantage. But it's a known disadvantage and you can partially compensate for that with tactics. Tactics require intelligence and skill beyond pointing and clicking but you say that this isn't the challenge that you are looking for. It really sounds like you want a more complex and entertaining way to kill people but don't want to assume any more risk as a result. Don't be such a wuss.

You (and others) continue to point out things about the system that are obviously broken or unworkable in their current states (ghillies and camo covering any bandit/hero markings for example). These things can (and hopefully will) be corrected!

Let's simplify a little. When you meet a player you can shoot them, avoid them or befriend them. Avoiding them you can already attempt to do but evidently don't. Befriending them doesn't appear to be your cup of tea because there will ALWAYS be the chance that you get shot in the back. The actions that you admit to and your statements indicate that you'll probably shoot on sight regardless. If I'm missing something please enlighten me.

Your statements are absurdly contradictory. I believe you are a bandit who is against skins simply because it will diminish your ability to abuse survivors' trust and less aggressive play style. No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to wear a 'Shoot Me' sign for killing indiscriminately, go play CoD. Yeah, I said it... it's appropriate here.

[SillySil 295]

You say that you want a lot of gray area. I've pointed out how a properly designed and adjusted skin system can help to add some gray. But too much gray and you have the complete lack of trust and KoS that we saw prior to skins being reintroduced.

Assuming survival is the objective KoS is the best choice because there are no downsides to it. What I'd like to see is a reason not to shoot people.

Not shooting on sight does put you at a disadvantage. But it's a known disadvantage and you can partially compensate for that with tactics. Tactics require intelligence and skill beyond pointing and clicking but you say that this isn't the challenge that you are looking for.

Yes you can lessen chances of getting shot by controlling the situation but you will always be at the mercy of the guy you're trying to befriend. Because you will always turn your back from him at some point. It's not challenging to walk to someone close enough to talk over direct and ask him "friendly" while either pointing your gun at him or from cover. The only challenging thing in it is not getting shot by someone else, but you always have this, doesn't matter if you're friendly or not. This challenge is always present.

It really sounds like you want a more complex and entertaining way to kill people but don't want to assume any more risk as a result. Don't be such a wuss.

I KoS. I don't befriend people to shoot them. If that was my thing I'd just grind the hero skin and lead the guys to my friends who would shoot them. And with the hero skin my success rate would skyrocket. I don't like the skins because they are a bad mechanic in my opinion. I'd rather have friendly and KoS playstyles equally valid if your objective is to survive.

You (and others) continue to point out things about the system that are obviously broken or unworkable in their current states (ghillies and camo covering any bandit/hero markings for example). These things can (and hopefully will) be corrected!

Even if skins are 100% reflecting whether someone is a bandit or not. There are things that can't be controlled. Like someone grinding hero skin to befriend people and relay their position to bandit friends. The skins will never be perfect. Balance the playstyles instead. Give disadvantages to KoS.

Let's simplify a little. When you meet a player you can shoot them, avoid them or befriend them. Avoiding them you can already attempt to do but evidently don't. Befriending them doesn't appear to be your cup of tea because there will ALWAYS be the chance that you get shot in the back. The actions that you admit to and your statements indicate that you'll probably shoot on sight regardless. If I'm missing something please enlighten me.

I shoot on sight because every mechanic supports this playstyle. I eliminate threats asap and gear up fast. Once you have the gear and start killing, you never need to scavenge again, go to a hospital/shop. KoS and looting people efficiently puts you out of danger.

Your statements are absurdly contradictory. I believe you are a bandit who is against skins simply because it will diminish your ability to abuse survivors' trust and less aggressive play style. No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to wear a 'Shoot Me' sign for killing indiscriminately, go play CoD. Yeah, I said it... it's appropriate here.

I have replied above to the trust thing.

How are my statements contradictory? I don't like how playstyles are imbalanced. Mechanics of DayZ favor KoS. That's why I'm a bandit. I'd like to see both playstyles to be equally valid because that would make the game richer. To have that there would have to be disadvantages to KoS. Because right now there aren't any. If both playstyles would be equally valid at surviving then I'd probably be a bandit hunter. Even taking the chance of being backstabbed to account. The point is to give a tradeoff to it.

Edited September 4, 2012 by SillySil

[Niblik 1]

I, for one, am glad to hear about bandit skins being brought back into the game. Hopefully this will bring about the more social atmosphere that I used to experience when I first started playing.

I'm tired of everyone shooting everyone else just for the hell of it.

[s4pphire 45]

The character should be defined by the player; there is no need for forced appearances.

Add more customization options and that should be sufficient, the rest is up to players to determine. Finding out if a person is friendly or not should be accomplished through analyzing their actions and communication, not because of a towel.

[Dev (DayZ) 113]

Time for me to bitch about something.

First a foremost: The skin system is so terrible as it is. Every skin change causes a temp stat reset and this is where things get interesting. On respawn with a bandit skin your humanity is at 0 and you skin will change almost randomly until you either get a player kill or wait half hour for the game to load up again.

2: You don't know if somebody is actually a bandit. I had 4k humanity today until a group of 3 people in bandit skins with half decent gear started moving towards me. I took all of them out. For that I got 3 murders against people who were clearly bandits. Now I have a bandit skin which leads me onto my next issue.

3: Shoot on sight. When there were no bandit skins, the shoot on sight mentality seemed far less common. People, like me, with bandit skins now have to shoot basically everyone they see or be shot.

Bandit skins should either be made optional or be removed until the whole skin system actually woks. They should also not be reliant on somebody's humanity but whether or not they are actually a bandit.

Based on that statement, you clearly have not played DayZ very long or not at all.

If you have a bandit skin, it is your fault and you will most likely get shot by everyone. It is not hard to get your humanity up to get rid of the skin unless you are murdering new spawns or killing people in hero skins.

[discombobulated 27]

How can anyone possible complain that it's a BAD thing? If you're killing people then your potential targets have the right to know that you are almost certainly going to kill them, you may not like it but it's true, the same way we don't like that you have the right to kill us for our stuff or even for (and I quote) "Target Practice".

If you got it through a bug or glitch or whatever then yes that is a shame and it's not fair, but remember it is still in alpha, so as Aristotle once said "Shit happens".

But yes there as to be a obvious visual way to tell if someone is a bandit or not, doesn't have to be a headscarf, but something that you can see as easily as you see the bandit him/herself.

Why do you have a right to know about that? This whole game was used as a social experiment, where is the experiment if you immediately know on sight the likely outcome of a situation? It brings the game less choice and makes it more of a linear "See bad guy, Shoot". This removes most aspects of player interaction, because the system does not work (and will never work, you can't program humanity into a game). Even if you could, I don't want to know if someone is a survivor/bandit/hero before I initiate contact with them, and if you do, then you're probably doing it wrong anyway.

There are many ways to contact someone without putting yourself at risk, and the only time you can't is when you round a corner and come face first with another survivor. Most of these situations end up in one or both parties dead anyway, as you act without thinking the situation through, which ends up in a shoot out. If you want "perks or repercussions" for certain behaviours (bandits or heroes) then fine, I see no problem with that, so long as they're balanced, but remove the skins.

Also what do you do when you see someone in a Ghillie Suit or CC? You have no idea if they are a hero/bandit/survivor. Chances are that means they will be killed if you have the upper hand on them, which could result in a murder, turning you into a bandit yourself. Then you're targeted by everyone else in the game for choosing the logical solution of removing a potential threat before it becomes one. Get into a shoot out with a survivor who can't shoot, and again, plus one murder when you're clearly defending yourself.

Who is "We"? Don't group all survivors into the same boat as you because you get into a fit when someone shoots you. I actually relish the thought of someone besting me in combat on this. It means I get to start over again (no sarcasm, I actually want this). I have more fun at the beginning of the game with no supplies, than I do when I have all the good gear. All my gear is replaceable, and it is more fun getting it, then having it.

Why do you "have" to have a system telling you if someone is a murderer or not? Are you incapable of playing a game without crutches to tell you what to do? Who to shoot at? Bandits have as much of a right to play as heroes and survivors, in fact there would be nothing to this game except a loot system if PvP was taken out. Zombies aren't a problem, people are. Every encounter you have with another player is an interesting experience, and "knowing" their play style just removes most of it.

I am a survivor. I have killed in self defence, and I have been killed for trusting people too much. That is the way life goes in DayZ.

Edited September 5, 2012 by discombobulated

[ZTrainz 21]

Assuming survival is the objective KoS is the best choice because there are no downsides to it. What I'd like to see is a reason not to shoot people.

If you expect a cookie just because you didn't shoot somebody, you're high. And stop lying to yourself. You snipe Cherno and bring buildings down on fresh spawns for the lulz, not survival or gear.

Yes you can lessen chances of getting shot by controlling the situation but you will always be at the mercy of the guy you're trying to befriend. Because you will always turn your back from him at some point. It's not challenging to walk to someone close enough to talk over direct and ask him "friendly" while either pointing your gun at him or from cover. The only challenging thing in it is not getting shot by someone else, but you always have this, doesn't matter if you're friendly or not. This challenge is always present.

I KoS. I don't befriend people to shoot them. If that was my thing I'd just grind the hero skin and lead the guys to my friends who would shoot them. And with the hero skin my success rate would skyrocket. I don't like the skins because they are a bad mechanic in my opinion. I'd rather have friendly and KoS playstyles equally valid if your objective is to survive.

Even if skins are 100% reflecting whether someone is a bandit or not. There are things that can't be controlled. Like someone grinding hero skin to befriend people and relay their position to bandit friends. The skins will never be perfect. Balance the playstyles instead. Give disadvantages to KoS.

I shoot on sight because every mechanic supports this playstyle. I eliminate threats asap and gear up fast. Once you have the gear and start killing, you never need to scavenge again, go to a hospital/shop. KoS and looting people efficiently puts you out of danger.

I have replied above to the trust thing.

How are my statements contradictory? I don't like how playstyles are imbalanced. Mechanics of DayZ favor KoS. That's why I'm a bandit. I'd like to see both playstyles to be equally valid because that would make the game richer. To have that there would have to be disadvantages to KoS. Because right now there aren't any. If both playstyles would be equally valid at surviving then I'd probably be a bandit hunter. Even taking the chance of being backstabbed to account. The point is to give a tradeoff to it.

I tire of your repetition. I've already explained why skins not reflecting actual actions every time is the ideal situation. I've already given an example of how the designers can tie other consequences to humanity. I've also predicted that the community will, in time, impose it's own penalties for banditry but bandits must be readily identifiable for this to happen. What you seem unable to comprehend is that a bandit skin is a disadvantage. Just how much of a disadvantage it becomes depends on the community. To be clear, I don't think skins alone will be enough leverage to balance bandit and survivor playstyles but I do think it will help.

In a proper system survivors will be a wildcard and survivors will be the largest group of players. Hopefully the skin comes with other consequences that deter or hinder indiscriminate killing. Maybe bandits need another resource like alcohol or nicotine. Maybe you start seeing ghosts or having flashbacks when you ADS after you pass a certain number of kills with that type of weapon. Whatever it is, it has to be painful enough to keep every 12 year old from going on a rampage just because he can. On the other side, it can't be completely incapacitating to those who really want to play as killers.

Consider this... you meet a survivor. He might generally kill people for their gear but since he's very close to the bandit skin/penalty threshold, he gives you a pass. Or he might have high enough humanity that he decides he can off you for kicks. You have no way of knowing but if you kill everyone you meet, just to be on the safe side, you'll definitely get a bandit skin and you'll definitely be KoS to everyone except (possibly) fellow bandits. Medics might not treat you; people might not trade with you; you might not be allowed to participate in facilitated trades; you might be followed just so heroes or survivors can burn your camp. In a game where duping isn't rampant these community imposed hardships will be significant. You need to stop looking at DayZ and it's features/systems/whatever as an end state and start looking at what it could become.

Some people won't care and will KoS regardless. Guess what... the humanity system isn't designed for those people. It's designed for everyone else that wants a more complex and rewarding DayZ.

Why do you have a right to know about that? This whole game was used as a social experiment, where is the experiment if you immediately know on sight the likely outcome of a situation? It brings the game less choice and makes it more of a linear "See bad guy, Shoot". This removes most aspects of player interaction, because the system does not work (and will never work, you can't program humanity into a game). Even if you could, I don't want to know if someone is a survivor/bandit/hero before I initiate contact with them, and if you do, then you're probably doing it wrong anyway.

Why do you "have" to have a system telling you if someone is a murderer or not? Are you incapable of playing a game without crutches to tell you what to do? Who to shoot at? Bandits have as much of a right to play as heroes and survivors, in fact there would be nothing to this game except a loot system if PvP was taken out. Zombies aren't a problem, people are. Every encounter you have with another player is an interesting experience, and "knowing" their play style just removes most of it.

The other side of "See bad guy, shoot" is "See good guy, don't shoot." Without skins the game just becomes "See anyone, shoot." We've seen it. You conveniently left out the side of the equation that makes your linearity argument invalid.

You're right, one cannot program humanity per se, into a game. One can, however, program a system of reward and consequence based on player actions that is designed to influence the frequency of those actions. Call it the poor programmer's version of morality. In this game, where incapacitation and death can come with a single shot, a clear visual indicator of a player's probable intention is needed to avoid FFA DM gameplay. We've already established that premise in this thread.

Also what do you do when you see someone in a Ghillie Suit or CC? You have no idea if they are a hero/bandit/survivor. Chances are that means they will be killed if you have the upper hand on them, which could result in a murder, turning you into a bandit yourself. Then you're targeted by everyone else in the game for choosing the logical solution of removing a potential threat before it becomes one. Get into a shoot out with a survivor who can't shoot, and again, plus one murder when you're clearly defending yourself.

Again, you bring up aspects of the system that are broken. I'll repeat myself... "You (and others) continue to point out things about the system that are obviously broken or unworkable in their current states (ghillies and camo covering any bandit/hero markings for example). These things can (and hopefully will) be corrected!" Please refer to my previous posts for examples of how a skin/humanity system could be structured to make player interaction viable but uncertain at the same time.

I was in a situation the other night where defense was counted as murder. The guy decided it would be a good idea to engage me from over 200m with a Winchester. He missed and moved toward my last position after dropping his zombies. I used that time to circle behind and kill him. I got a murder but since my humanity was positive I didn't drop low enough to get the bandit skin. If I was close to the bandit skin threshold, I would have broken contact to avoid the humanity hit. This is a perfect example of how, even in it's current implementation, the humanity/skin system can be flexible and add choices at the same time.

Who is "We"? Don't group all survivors into the same boat as you because you get into a fit when someone shoots you. I actually relish the thought of someone besting me in combat on this. It means I get to start over again (no sarcasm, I actually want this). I have more fun at the beginning of the game with no supplies, than I do when I have all the good gear. All my gear is replaceable, and it is more fun getting it, then having it.

"We" supposes the author and at least one other person. I happen to agree with that half of Axz's sentence. His use of "we" is valid. Although I suspect that many, many survivors also hold a similar opinion.

Edited September 5, 2012 by ZTrainz

[SillySil 295]

If you expect a cookie just because you didn't shoot somebody, you're high.

I expect to have a hard choice when deciding whether I should be friendly or not. And it will happen by either having some sort of reward for cooperating (like needing other people to do something that you can't, you know perks or skills or whatever, maybe something else) or having penalty for killing people which you mention later. I guess I'm high.

And stop lying to yourself. You snipe Cherno and bring buildings down on fresh spawns for the lulz, not survival or gear.

Once I have the gear, yeah. Because there is nothing else to do that doesn't involve my life depending on some other people's grace. Another problem with the game. Once you get all the gear, PvP is the only challenge this game has.

However, once I die and find a weapon I kill people on sight and take their stuff because that's the fastest way of gearing up. It doesn't matter what I do later. Nothing is going to change that.

I tire of your repetition. I've already explained why skins not reflecting actual actions every time is the ideal situation. I've already given an example of how the designers can tie other consequences to humanity. I've also predicted that the community will, in time, impose it's own penalties for banditry but bandits must be readily identifiable for this to happen. What you seem unable to comprehend is that a bandit skin is a disadvantage. Just how much of a disadvantage it becomes depends on the community. To be clear, I don't think skins alone will be enough leverage to balance bandit and survivor playstyles but I do think it will help.

In the current state it's not a disadvantage. It will only be a disadvantage when there are many non-bandits. Even then the gullibility of this system is just bad. Innocent people will be branded bandits and there will be bandits in hero skin. It's a flawed design. Always will be. And yeah I understand you can combine it with other penalties but I think that penalties alone can balance the scales and in my opinion would make the game more interesting. Less TDM more "I'm not really sure if I wanna shoot the guy, join him or tell him to stay away from me".

In a proper system survivors will be a wildcard and survivors will be the largest group of players. Hopefully the skin comes with other consequences that deter or hinder indiscriminate killing. Maybe bandits need another resource like alcohol or nicotine. Maybe you start seeing ghosts or having flashbacks when you ADS after you pass a certain number of kills with that type of weapon. Whatever it is, it has to be painful enough to keep every 12 year old from going on a rampage just because he can. On the other side, it can't be completely incapacitating to those who really want to play as killers.

I absolutely agree with everything you said here. The penalty can't be linear it needs to have a limit or being committed killer will be impossible and people should have that option. And the penalty for the first few kills shouldn't be too harsh either.

Consider this... you meet a survivor. He might generally kill people for their gear but since he's very close to the bandit skin/penalty threshold, he gives you a pass. Or he might have high enough humanity that he decides he can off you for kicks. You have no way of knowing but if you kill everyone you meet, just to be on the safe side, you'll definitely get a bandit skin and you'll definitely be KoS to everyone except (possibly) fellow bandits. Medics might not treat you; people might not trade with you; you might not be allowed to participate in facilitated trades; you might be followed just so heroes or survivors can burn your camp. In a game where duping isn't rampant these community imposed hardships will be significant. You need to stop looking at DayZ and it's features/systems/whatever as an end state and start looking at what it could become.

You vision is just too utopian, you just assume that 80% of players will be survivors or at least not committed killers. That will take more than skins and is even possible without the skins at all.

Some people won't care and will KoS regardless. Guess what... the humanity system isn't designed for those people. It's designed for everyone else that wants a more complex and rewarding DayZ.

Well that's exactly why I have a problem with it. If the goal is to balance survivor and bandit numbers the changes should be focused on balancing the playstyles, not this whole branding thing that's just... I don't know cheap? It just changes the gamemode to TDM with the red team teamkilling themselves most of the time. This game could be so much more. That's why I don't like the skin system.

[Langdal 1]

Another reason the bandit system is unacceptable in its current form:

I was running around minding my own business when suddenly I hear an AS50-shot closeby. I see a "... was killed" message in chat and assume I've run into bandits. I spot two of them but I see that both have ghillie suits; I suppose that the one who shot someone had such a high humanity that he did not get the bandit skin.

I observe them and decide that I should revenge the fallen one, so I pick up my DMR. The two bandits are prone nearby so I am pretty sure I can get an easy double kill. I shoot the first one in the head and start aiming for the second one. I press the fire button and I hear the first half of the shooting sound, before it is interrupted by me becoming a bandit. Now I've blown my cover AND I have to wait for the whole animation to finish. And now I have my pistol equipped so I have to switch back to AS50 (EDIT: DMR). Needless to say the other guy gets away.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Langdal

[SillySil 295]

Another reason the bandit system is unacceptable in its current form:

I was running around minding my own business when suddenly I hear an AS50-shot closeby. I see a "... was killed" message in chat and assume I've run into bandits. I spot two of them but I see that both have ghillie suits; I suppose that the one who shot someone had such a high humanity that he did not get the bandit skin.

I observe them and decide that I should revenge the fallen one, so I pick up my DMR. The two bandits are prone nearby so I am pretty sure I can get an easy double kill. I shoot the first one in the head and start aiming for the second one. I press the fire button and I hear the first half of the shooting sound, before it is interrupted by me becoming a bandit. Now I've blown my cover AND I have to wait for the whole animation to finish. And now I have my pistol equipped so I have to switch back to AS50. Needless to say the other guy gets away.

That's a bug not a part of the design. And you had DMR then a pistol then AS50?

I know about the bug tho, it's annoying especially the one where you loose your backpack but it's a bug to be fixed.

[Dharmaman 0]

I was actually working on a similar idea as Dayz some years ago.

The game was based on the idea of Karma.

If you did good and negative Karma would work in your favour in several ways:

Im just writing down general ideas here:

Gain Karma by:

Working in groups (+1 to stay within 30 m for 10 min)

Avoiding to kill/hurt any living creature (No positive nor negative effect)

Sharing items (+1 for food and water)

Healing or reviving (+10 blood transfusion and revival)

Donating money for the Dayz project :D (+10 for 1 euro)

Loose karma by:

Killing Zombies (-1 karma),

Killing bandits (-2 karma),

Killing animals (-3 karma),

Killing survivors (-7 karma)

Loot body of somebody you shot (-10 karma)

Karma may affect your:

1) Emotions

Negative emotions: would increase your adrenaline level and make you more and more paranoid and nervous.

You will be sleep deprived due to restless sleeps and lack of rest.

Due to high stresslevels and adrenaline the body produces large portions of pheromones that can be detected by sensitive individuals.

Which means that other players may intutively sense a presence by increased heartbeat.

Animals will run from the area, and zombies will attack at a longer distance.

A stressed person will be less sensitive to the world - and loose contact with his sensitivity to dangers.

Positive emotions will first of all counter the effect of negative emotions.

In addition it will increase your mental clarity and your intuition. You will have an hightened sense of awareness - and be able to detect dangers early.

Others will sense your warm compassionate nature and not attack you.

2) Appearance

Negative emotions will have its impact your appearance. You will physically look aggressive, cold, stressed or fearfull. Negative also change how you physically animate your self.

Tention will make you move odd and perverted.

3) Loot

In Buddhist philosophy - all positive experience\s is due to well intentioned actions in the past.

Because you helped somebody you may later experience some type of support or help.

This way Karma can highly affect the loot you find.

Positive karma will let you find more useful items, whilst negative karma will reduce the chance to find loot -

which again means that you must kill more - to gain more - which turns into a negative spiral.

4) Health

Quote Wikipedia::

Constant stress causes continual release of various stress hormones which can cause:

• A depletion of energy storage
  
• Stress-induced hypertension
  
• Effects on metabolic processes
  
• Ulcers (digestion)
  
• Hampered growth
  
• Decrease in testosterone levels in males and irregular menstrual cycles in females.
  
• Increased likelihood of infectious diseases.
  Since negative behaviour often have a tendency to lead to negative emotions and thinking - it is likely that the player character will suffer from the above effects.
  * He must eat and drink more often due to limited energy storage and bad metabolism.
  * Hes immunesystem will be weaker with a lower threshold for catching diseases.
  

Im sure many of these suggestons have been posted before.

It might be that its too complex as mentioned here- but I beleive that even a couple of these suggestions may be able to solve the whole skin problem.:

[Langdal 1]

That's a bug not a part of the design. And you had DMR then a pistol then AS50?

I know about the bug tho, it's annoying especially the one where you loose your backpack but it's a bug to be fixed.

No the AS50 part was just me forgetting what weapon I had. I had a DMR, and when you change skin your guy defaults back to using his pistol, then I took my DMR back up. I edited the original post.

[Bizmal 19]

I dig the bandit skins,.

[discombobulated 27]

The other side of "See bad guy, shoot" is "See good guy, don't shoot." Without skins the game just becomes "See anyone, shoot." We've seen it. You conveniently left out the side of the equation that makes your linearity argument invalid.

You're right, one cannot program humanity per se, into a game. One can, however, program a system of reward and consequence based on player actions that is designed to influence the frequency of those actions. Call it the poor programmer's version of morality. In this game, where incapacitation and death can come with a single shot, a clear visual indicator of a player's probable intention is needed to avoid FFA DM gameplay. We've already established that premise in this thread.

Yes but how many people don't shoot in this game, even when you see a hero or survivor. It doesn't matter what skin you're wearing, you are always a bad guy to some, and a good guy to others (except bandits, they usually kill everyone). And yes I also stated that a reward and consequence system is not necessarily a bad idea, just to try and level the playing field a bit.

Leaving out one side of an argument does not make it invalid, it just means I am biased towards that one side, all I have said about it is true, it is up to the people that disagree to fill in their side of the discussion.

What I don't want is a skin system that tells me how people are likely to act before you've even made contact. Where has the thrill gone? Why is a skin system needed? I understand you can die instantly in this game, it has happened several times to me, once from someone who teamed up with me for about 20 minutes before shooting me in the back of the head. I still don't want a skin system, it makes it "easy-mode" in my opinion. Leave in the humanity and an R&C system and it keeps the feel of not knowing who to trust, but it gives people a reason not to shoot on sight if you're given something good for helping someone out.

I was in a situation the other night where defense was counted as murder. The guy decided it would be a good idea to engage me from over 200m with a Winchester. He missed and moved toward my last position after dropping his zombies. I used that time to circle behind and kill him. I got a murder but since my humanity was positive I didn't drop low enough to get the bandit skin. If I was close to the bandit skin threshold, I would have broken contact to avoid the humanity hit. This is a perfect example of how, even in it's current implementation, the humanity/skin system can be flexible and add choices at the same time.

"We" supposes the author and at least one other person. I happen to agree with that half of Axz's sentence. His use of "we" is valid. Although I suspect that many, many survivors also hold a similar opinion.

Sorry mate but if you had the chance to circle around behind and kill him without him knowing you were there, then that is a murder, and no amount of humanity should have allowed you to keep your survivor/hero skin. Shooting in self defence would be when they know where you are at all times and are attempting to kill you. If they lose you, then it should be over, head in a different direction to the way you were going, and move on. So I Disagree, and say that is a broken system, killing a bandit doesn't make you any better than them at all, and survivors/heroes should avoid killing them unless absolutely necessary. There is a difference between self-defence and a murder, even on a bandit, but the system is not capable of handling that level of complexity.

[broguenz 333]

...

Edited September 6, 2012 by RogueNZ

[Fabik 71]

The Ghillie suit IS a bandit skin that players can pick up... or not.

I never pick up a Ghillie. Survivors have no use for it in this game.

Its only use is to set up ambushes. Only bandits set up ambushes.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Fabik

[ZTrainz 21]

Sorry mate but if you had the chance to circle around behind and kill him without him knowing you were there, then that is a murder, and no amount of humanity should have allowed you to keep your survivor/hero skin. Shooting in self defence would be when they know where you are at all times and are attempting to kill you. If they lose you, then it should be over, head in a different direction to the way you were going, and move on. So I Disagree, and say that is a broken system, killing a bandit doesn't make you any better than them at all, and survivors/heroes should avoid killing them unless absolutely necessary. There is a difference between self-defence and a murder, even on a bandit, but the system is not capable of handling that level of complexity.

It's this kind of mentality and rush to judgement that leads to a burglar suing the homeowner that shot him. :rolleyes:

That encounter happened between Khelm and Berezino. Following the patch of woods we were in would have led me straight into Khelm and spawned zombies. The only other egress routes were runs across large fields. I consciously chose to use my current advantage rather than risk a situation where I was being pursued without that advantage.

I trailed him for a few minutes to be certain of his intentions. He moved slowly from tree to tree, all the while looking and advancing toward the last spot that he saw me. He had already made his intentions clear by shooting at me (as I was running away from him) and he was obviously still trying to find me. He made a tactical error by losing sight of me and moving toward my last known position without re-establishing visual contact. Had he not made that error, I may have been the one that ended up on the coast. If he had turned and run the other way he would've lived. If he had done anything other than pursue me, he would've lived. It was his choice to continue to actively hunt me and he died because his intended prey got the upper hand.

Killing a bandit isn't murder - ever. It's justice. It's saving the life of that spawner that would've been in his scope five minutes later. It might even be saving your own life two minutes into the future. I think you should check out Hello Kitty Online. It seems to fit your life philosophy better than any game that has guns.

@Silly:

Evidently we both want a situation where KoS isn't automatically the best method of operation. We just disagree on how to get there. You say we can get there with just penalties, rewards and skill sets. I say we need skins too.

Do I expect my "vision" to actually happen? Not really. It would be cool if it did but I don't expect all of those community pressures, even from a standalone. Similar stuff happened in UO but there are things that were a part of UO from the outset that just aren't in DayZ (towns with npc guards for instance). I meant it as a possibility rather than a vision. I did, after all, use "might" six times in that paragraph.

Furthermore, I would say my vision is actually pessimistic for this reason: I don't think a game imposed system of penalties and rewards can be balanced finely enough to make tough choices while still allowing the bandit playstyle to be viable. I think the penalties will be either too severe and you won't get many bandits or you'll have penalties that don't have enough teeth to deter many survivors. Same concept applies to any potential rewards and skill sets.

I also hold they opinion that adding systems that artificially mimic or influence morality is a slippery slope. The smaller these systems are, the better. Otherwise 2 years goes by and your well intentioned systems have ballooned to the point that you've created a WoW shooter.

@Fabik:

What if you're a bandit hunter? The morality of that is debatable but most bandit hunters wouldn't consider themselves "bandits." In fact if you kill exclusively bandits, you eventually get the hero skin as I understand it.

Aside from that, anyone is much tougher to spot in a ghillie. I've had friends lose me in a forest when they were following me at 50m. Knock on my friends if you like but they've never lost me when I'm in the survivor skin.