Incentivizing Teamwork opposed to Punishing Murder

[Friend-or-Pho 0]

After reading some of the suggestions about murderers/bandits I've come to the conclusion that people are focusing on the wrong thing.

Instead of punishing players who are murderers/bandits, shouldn't the game reward players who work together and help one another?

Currently there is more reason to kill an unknown player than not. They could very well aim to kill you, they may have nicer gear, or they may of simply spooked you and you shot on instinct. Right now the simplist motivation that DayZ offers (to survive) can easily be fulfilled while playing solo. Should that be considered enough?

There will always be players who prefer to go the lonely hermit route, and there will ALWAYS be players who are willing to kill. Both of these methods are every bit as valid as the desire to band together and survive. In my opinion any solution that punishes these play styles is inherently flawed.

So what are some potential rewards for teaming up? Keep in mind these are some rough ideas, and by no means are they the only ones. Feel free to add your own.

- An increase in morale when your character would otherwise be scared

- The ability to form large groups and build a small town/fortification

- A mechanic for establishing (within visual range) that both parties are committing to a non-violent parley

[fackstah 31]

NO

the end

[motocross 49]

Possibly the ability to lose food or water meter slower? As you are pushed by your mates to keep going?Just a suggestion as this would work in-game wise.

[Friend-or-Pho 0]

NO

the end

Care to elaborate?

[fackstah 31]

your thread is one of the million others this game is survioval based ( death is part of survival same with bandits) stop tryin to punish people for an intentional game feature go play candy land or somthing if you cant deal

i shouldnt need to elaborate more

[Friend-or-Pho 0]

You have clearly missed the entire point of this thread...

What I am suggesting is that there should be some mechanics that reward players for taking the risk to trust another survivor. I flat out said that punishing murder is stupid. There is nothing about rewarding teamwork that directly punishes bandits/murderers, because the same teamwork incentives would be available to bandits. All three of the brainstorm ideas I came up with are also applicable to bandits.

What I would like to see is more depth than simply the desire to survive, as that can easily be fulfilled with the current game. This can go on to include end-game content that requires coordinated teamwork from either survivors OR bandits, such as the ability to construct forts.

If you would be so kind, please quote anything I have posted that resembles whinning about dying.

Again, since it was missed the first time: There will always be players who prefer to go the lonely hermit route, and there will ALWAYS be players who are willing to kill. Both of these methods are every bit as valid as the desire to band together and survive. In my opinion any solution that punishes these play styles is inherently flawed.

For anyone who doubts or doesn't understand what I'm getting at. Imagine a group of survivors have successfully built a fort out in the woods. They have stockpiled weapons, ammo, food, and medical supplies. You and your bandit buddies group up, form a strike team and attack the fort. Imagine that you were successful in raiding the fort, now you have all of that gear for yourselves.

The heart of what I'm suggesting would only improve and add diversity to the PvP encounters that are already in-game. The benefits of teamwork mechanics would work both ways, in offering survivors more possibilities for teaming up; as well as give bandits the same benefits. If you are scared that the dynamics of the game may shift out of your comfort zone, I understand that. But in the end which is more EPIC, killing some scrub for his Mak and beans, or leading the most amazing bandit raid that nets you a bunch of gear AND a sweet fort.

Another potential way these mechanics could benefit Bandits. Suppose you see some survivors, you indicate to them that you want to meet peacefully. All the while they dont know your buddy is in the bushes with a DMR. You walk up to them start some small talk, and then your friend blows thier brains out. How is that punishing banditry?

[Dinnj 4]

- An increase in morale when your character would otherwise be scared

No

- The ability to form large groups and build a small town/fortification

Yes please

- A mechanic for establishing (within visual range) that both parties are committing to a non-violent parley

Unnecessary, players should make the precautions themselves.

[Friend-or-Pho 0]

- A mechanic for establishing (within visual range) that both parties are committing to a non-violent parley

Unnecessary' date=' players should make the precautions themselves.

[/quote']

Those ideas are hardly the entirety of this concept. As far as this idea, I meant a more visual indication such as completely holstering you weapon or a friendly wave. The risk/precaution would still be entirely up to the player. You could always say, "screw this, I'm shooting." Nothing about any of these suggestions is meant to take the risk out of the game. Nor are they about enforcing peace among survivors.

What I imagine this specific mechanic to simulate is something you often see in single-player RPGs. NPCs don't like it when you talk to them with your weapon out. I believe that survivors should atleast have the option for showing they don't have hostile intentions. The risk in doing so would be that you've put your gun away (hypothetically), the precaution would be making sure the other guy has done the same as well.

After all if it is a stupid idea thats fine, but atleast we are brainstorming.

[catgut 3]

I like all three ideas. The morale bonus in particular strikes me as a practical but subtle benefit, and it's realistic and logical to boot. Being able to give a wave, combined with holstering or slinging weapons, would make non-violent initial contact a lot easier as well.

[gizm0 96]

your thread is one of the million others this game is survioval based ( death is part of survival same with bandits) stop tryin to punish people for an intentional game feature go play candy land or somthing if you cant deal

i shouldnt need to elaborate more

Not one of this ideas harms bandit behavior in anyway' date=' it also doesn't punish any player because to punish a player something has to be taken away.

If something is given to a player that is in a group compared to playing solo, you are not punishing the solo player because nothing is being taken away from the solo player.

Its like saying cooked meats +blood bonus punishes players who eat canned food, Or canteens being allowed to be refilled punishes pop(soda) drinkers.

Being part of a team vs playing Solo is just like choosing canteens or pop, cooked meat or canned food, the winchester or AKM, friendly or being an asshole.

We are not harming solo players by saying a player in a group is less likely to get shocked by a gun shot, and we are not harming bandits by allowing friendly players to show their intent without having to stop and salute.[/color']

[poisonman 28]

- A mechanic for establishing (within visual range) that both parties are committing to a non-violent parley

Unnecessary' date=' players should make the precautions themselves.

[/quote']

Those ideas are hardly the entirety of this concept. As far as this idea, I meant a more visual indication such as completely holstering you weapon or a friendly wave. The risk/precaution would still be entirely up to the player. You could always say, "screw this, I'm shooting." Nothing about any of these suggestions is meant to take the risk out of the game. Nor are they about enforcing peace among survivors.

What I imagine this specific mechanic to simulate is something you often see in single-player RPGs. NPCs don't like it when you talk to them with your weapon out. I believe that survivors should atleast have the option for showing they don't have hostile intentions. The risk in doing so would be that you've put your gun away (hypothetically), the precaution would be making sure the other guy has done the same as well.

After all if it is a stupid idea thats fine, but atleast we are brainstorming.

Double click Left Control key on your keyboard, your weapon is now lowered, that much is already in game atleast.

[Shag 90]

I agree with the overall concept of having some reason to team up, but none of them should equate to some intangible benefit or penalty. The world should force you to team up to achieve some type of goal without artifical constructs.

Simply, good gear in center of Cherno.

Cherno totally overrun by hundereds of zeds.

Zeds no longer as unaware of survivors 5 foot away crouch running.

Many zeds mean you need a team of tooled up survivors to get to the good stuff.

Instant reason to team up.

AI controlled government military group intent on silencing survivors following zed outbreak.

Track survivors to kill.

Survivor on own have zero survival chance

Survivor in squads may just make it.

Instant reason to band together.

As soon as the world is more dangerous and harder to survive, players will naturally band together.

[gr0g88 0]

I agree that co-op should be somehow rewarded, and that bandits / solos shouldn't be punished. I would like them to be punished , but that's because I'm more of a co-op player, and not a quake deathmatch player.

I really enjoy that all options are at the players finger tips, and not strictly candyland or quake.

All ideas mentioned here, I think, have the possibility to make the game better. If they actually work or not, remains to be seen.

Here are some more ideas to help the co-op side of the community:

- Faster bandaging from other players

~easier to bandage someone else than one's self

- Global Chat~

~Allow a global chat channel to people without murders

~Murderer's can't write in it? And/or cant even see it? (opinions please)

~Good for newbies who are clueless on playing, and will otherwise get killed easy and leave (good for community building)

- Murder-Free servers (Oh boy, here comes the flames)

~Players may join only with 0 murders. They can remain in game if a murder is commited. This will help newbies, and reduce the flow of carebear tears.

~Vast majority of servers should remain as "normal" DayZ servers.

~I know I'm going to hear alot of bad things about this suggestion, but the reality is there are 2 groups of players. One takes joy from the frustration of the others. Deathmatch players can always have fun killing eachother. Veteran players slaying carebears and newbs who just try to co-op, well, its damages community, and could reduce the number of potential customers. Creating Co-op only servers would be even worse, so, have both, and make it a one-way change.

- Military patrols that attack on site players with murders. (I pulled this off another post, and refined it)

~ Military spawns based on # of murders.

~ Patrols drop military weapons (good for our bandit brothers)

- Perhaps Civilian NPCs?

~They could give beans or w/e to carebears.

~ Bandits could beat them down for LOL QUAD NADE KILL

~ Bandits could use them as bait?

~ Maybe they could offer blood transfusion to survivors, if the survivor had the proper "tools".

====================

Keep in mind these ideas are still half-baked dreams, and not demands. Suggestions welcome, pvp/realism rage ignored.

[imagelesskjc 35]

ITT: People who are dependent upon systems that give them a crutch to compete with because they lack the experience and knowledge to succeed ingame.

Ladies, pick up your panties (No offense to women. Hi mom). You are asking for an artificial bonus that is exclusive to your playstyle. That is giving you an advantage over others, whether you'd like to admit that or not. If you want hand holding or soft pussy action, go get a girlfriend. I'd advise not asking Rocket for it because you might be disappointed.

[gr0g88 0]

ITT: People who are dependent upon systems that give them a crutch to compete with because they lack the experience and knowledge to succeed ingame.

Ladies' date=' pick up your panties (No offense to women. Hi mom). You are asking for an artificial bonus that is exclusive to your playstyle. That [b']is giving you an advantage over others, whether you'd like to admit that or not. If you want hand holding or soft pussy action, go get a girlfriend. I'd advise not asking Rocket for it because you might be disappointed.

We're trying to come up with a system that appeals to all types of players, not exclusively one type or the other. Games that appeal to more players, make more money. Do mods ever clean up posts like these?

[liquidje 38]

We're trying to come up with a system that appeals to all types of players' date=' not exclusively one type or the other. Games that appeal to more players, make more money. Do mods ever clean up posts like these?

[/quote']

1. This is a mod, this mod does NOT make money

2. The game is not trying to broaden itself for a wider audience, at least not without fucking up the mod integrity at this point. If thet wanted to broaden up, they would have levels, xp, no perma-death etc. And of those, there are 100s of games. This game is for a niche-audience.

3. We are not talking about "type of gamers", but gamestyles whithin DayZ as it is. So everything from "paranoid survivor" to "helpful survivor", to "neutral, but shoot on sight" to "bandits". One of the fundamental principles is that one playstyle should not be favoured over another when coming up with features.

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

See the teamwork philology in my sig.

The game should not award you or punish you for doing X,Y, or Z

though there should be objectives that award you in completion

building heli for exp.

I don't mean OH YOU MADE A HELICOPTER here take this can of beans.

I mean the helicopter is it self a award.

[imagelesskjc 35]

We're trying to come up with a system that appeals to all types of players' date=' not exclusively one type or the other. Games that appeal to more players, make more money. Do mods ever clean up posts like these?

[/quote']

You missed my point entirely. Your suggestions have been incentivising your preferred playstyle i.e. cooperative.

I agree that co-op should be somehow rewarded' date=' and that bandits / solos shouldn't be punished. I would like them to be punished, but that's because I'm more of a co-op player, and not a quake deathmatch player.

[/quote']

You admitted in your first paragraph that this would benefit your playstyle.

Lets imagine for a second, two kids fighting each other. Now lets say a parent strolls into the room and sees what they've done too each other. Billy has a black eye and some missing teeth, while Stack has a broken jaw. The parent then gives Stack a piece of candy because the parent prefers his playstyle. Is that fair for Billy? Don't you think Billy will see that as a punishment?

[ryansongy@hotmail.com 27]

The issue is that it's far far too easy to survive. Ammo spawns should be made rare and guns rarer. Especially military weapons. Vehicles should be more common but require more teamwork to get running. For instance two people to push and one person to jumpstart the car because the battery is dead.

After it's made harder to survive more things like the teamwork required to use bloodbags is necessary. More things that require the aid of another player. Enough things so that if you see another player you're glad to see them instead of apprehensive and ready to shoot. Perhaps locked doors that require two people bashing on it at once to break it open and get loot that would be otherwise hard to come by in this new harder-to-survive world.

Rocket has already been quoted in saying he doesn't like the fact that people shoot on sight with no consequences. He wants to encourage teamwork.

The change is coming.

[gizm0 96]

We're trying to come up with a system that appeals to all types of players' date=' not exclusively one type or the other. Games that appeal to more players, make more money. Do mods ever clean up posts like these?

[/quote']

You missed my point entirely. Your suggestions have been incentivising your preferred playstyle i.e. cooperative.

I agree that co-op should be somehow rewarded' date=' and that bandits / solos shouldn't be punished. I would like them to be punished, but that's because I'm more of a co-op player, and not a quake deathmatch player. So currently dayz favors killing each other than working with each other.

[/quote']

You admitted in your first paragraph that this would benefit your playstyle.

Lets imagine for a second, two kids fighting each other. Now lets say a parent strolls into the room and sees what they've done too each other. Billy has a black eye and some missing teeth, while Stack has a broken jaw. The parent then gives Stack a piece of candy because the parent prefers his playstyle. Is that fair for Billy? Don't you think Billy will see that as a punishment?

Ok, lets remove all the weapons because they favor PVP playstyles. see how your argument can be turned right back at you. There is no arguing that Dayz has little to no tools that isn't based around killing each other.

[imagelesskjc 35]

Ok' date=' lets remove all the weapons because they favor PVP playstyles. see how your arguement can be turned right back at you. Right now Dayz is lacking very baddly in tools that are not me kill you.

[/quote']

It went from candy to guns way too fast :P

Let me point out that this is a terrible counterargument. Your talking about completely removing a core element of the game, not adding incentives to a playstyle.

[ryansongy@hotmail.com 27]

Lets imagine for a second' date=' two kids fighting each other. Now lets say a parent strolls into the room and sees what they've done too each other. Billy has a black eye and some missing teeth, while Stack has a broken jaw. The parent then gives Stack a piece of candy because the parent prefers his [u']playstyle. Is that fair for Billy? Don't you think Billy will see that as a punishment?

That is a horribly incorrect strawman of an analogy.

Being a loner should still be an option but in any case teamwork SHOULD always prevail. The core of promoting the teamwork playstyle anyways is to keep people from just shooting eachother on sight anyways, which like i've said rocket doesn't want to happen.

And its not fair for stack either because how is he going to eat a piece of candy with a broken jaw?

[gizm0 96]

Ok' date=' lets remove all the weapons because they favor PVP playstyles. see how your arguement can be turned right back at you. Right now Dayz is lacking very baddly in tools that are not me kill you.

[/quote']

It went from candy to guns way too fast :P

Let me point out that this is a terrible counterargument. Your talking about completely removing a core element of the game, not adding incentives to a playstyle.

But I bet you still understood my point, the game incentives killing each other at its roots, which means without adding incentives to work together, the core elements will always make PVP more rewarding. So we need incentives to have other playstyles than killing each other because the core elements of arma 2 are based are PVP. This is only so that each playstyle has some pros and some cons. Currently everyone is defaulting to PVP because that is all that the core gameplay offers.

Currently because I'm not someone who wants to engage in PVP, I only have to log on maybe 1 hour a day to kill some animals, cook the meat, fill my canteens, eat and drink, and log off for the day.

Mainly these suggestions bar the comfort in a group one. Would give players more tools to provide deeper interactions between players, sure they give reasons to form groups and not kill. But isn't having to complex interactions what dayz is about?

[liquidje 38]

Do any people read Rockets posts? He has stated that teamwork is a priority at this point, but he would never promote one playstyle over the other. But he doesn't want to do this through some artificial game mechanic.

But I bet you still understood my point' date=' the game incentives killing each other at its roots, which means without adding incentives to work together, the core elements will always make PVP more rewarding. So we need incentives to have other playstyles than killing each other because the core elements of arma 2 are based are PVP. This is only so that each playstyle has some pros and some cons. [b']Currently everyone is defaulting to PVP because that is all that the core gameplay offers. Currently because I'm not someone who wants to engage in PVP, I only have to log on maybe 1 hour a day to kill some animals, cook the meat, fill my canteens, eat and drink, and log off for the day.

No that is not true. Just look around for the early game experiences, that is not what happened. At this point, I think the problem is more that most people who get a gun in their hand, auto-default to shooting. Then people get killed, they learn from "trusting people" and they also shoot in sight.

It is very hard to say anything reasonable about how it should be, because of the hype of all kinds of people attracted to this game, while they actually want another game (and thus adapt this game to what they think they should do, i.e. shooting)

[gizm0 96]

Do any people read Rockets posts? He has stated that teamwork is a priority at this point' date=' but he would never promote one playstyle over the other. But he doesn't want to do this through some artificial game mechanic.

[/quote']

building is a natural thing humans can do, so having a mechanic to allow us to build wouldn't be artificial.