Incentivizing Teamwork opposed to Punishing Murder

[liquidje 38]

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.

True (as a fire is also "built" in some way). But WHAT you build should also not be artificial. But nowhere in this thread I can find anything about "building stuff"?

[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.

True (as a fire is also "built" in some way). But WHAT you build should also not be artificial. But nowhere in this thread I can find anything about "building stuff"?

taken from the OP

build a small town/fortification

second part of his bullets.

[imagelesskjc 35]

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

Touche'. You win this one :P

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' date=' which like i've said rocket doesn't want to happen.

[/quote']

I'd like to point out that I'm not justifying shooting on sight. I am however, suggesting that you have no authority to tell me what playstyle is better than the other.

Incentivising teamplay over being a loner may have not have the effect you are all hoping for concerning the shoot on sight mentality. This isn't a two sided coin; there is more than loner bandits that shoot on sight, and groups of survivors that don't. What If I'm a lone wolf that doesn't shoot on sight? What if I'm in a group that actively hunts down survivors? Most here are thinking in black/white terms.

(Edit/sidenote: I'm not trying to avoid bringing up alternatives to incentives, but I refuse to hijack this thread with my suggestions. I'm merely trying to make others think holistically about the subject.)

[gizm0 96]

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

Touche'. You win this one :P

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' date=' which like i've said rocket doesn't want to happen.

[/quote']

I'd like to point out that I'm not justifying shooting on sight. I am however, suggesting that you have no authority to tell me what playstyle is better than the other.

Incentivising teamplay over being a loner may have not have the effect you are all hoping for concerning the shoot on sight mentality. This isn't a two sided coin; there is more than loner bandits that shoot on sight, and groups of survivors that don't. What If I'm a lone wolf that doesn't shoot on sight? What if I'm in a group that actively hunts down survivors? Most here are thinking in black/white terms.

kinda but I think of it in more of a circle manner like a moral compass....

[gr0g88 0]

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.

1. This is a mod that people are buying the game just to play, that means money. The chance of this game becoming stand alone and/or Arma 3 Dayz, means money.

2. Sounds like you've mixed your persona into the .rar files you downloaded? This alpha can really go anywhere at this point. Its an alpha. The game, as it stands now, is great. I really enjoy it. I dont want to take away from the PvP side, I'd just like a less hardcore version at times.

3. Glad to see you agree with me. "Types of players" and "playstyle" are almost synonyms. I think the argument you were trying to make was, 'PvP/Bandits/Deathmatchers are on par with other playstyles'. Our argument was 'Choosing to help each other atm is seldom worth the risk/reward'.

In a Zombie-Apoc, from the vast majority of film and novels, people tend to stick together and only fight amongst them selves when low on supplies, or when the plot demands it. 'Bandits' are still a role there, and surely they exist, but it seems they should be the exception, and not the rule.

Shoot on sight yields the best rewards atm, and its far from the 'realism' one would expect from the zombie media we've all learn to love.

We still want shoot on sight. If I was in a group with someone who was annoying, messing up and attracting zombies, or hording supplies, I'd put a few through him. We dont want to "Nerf Bandits" or "Buff Survivors".

Also, I'm pretty sure Redz is trolling.

[liquidje 38]

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.

True (as a fire is also "built" in some way). But WHAT you build should also not be artificial. But nowhere in this thread I can find anything about "building stuff"?

taken from the OP

build a small town/fortification

second part of his bullets.

The point is that a fortification is just a small building with some ways to prevent people from entering it. Yeah, you should be able to build these (you can already make a shed into such a fortification). However, usually people want mechanics so that bandits can't take their fortification as easily, or at least they want added bonusses next to the fact that you have a fortification.

Building a town would be ridiculous in my viewpoint.

[imagelesskjc 35]

Also' date=' I'm pretty sure Redz is trolling.

[/quote']

So bringing up legitimate concerns and arguments that conflict with yours means I'm a troll? :huh:

I see how this game is played.

You sir, are Yetti. :P

[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.

1. This is a mod that people are buying the game just to play, that means money. The chance of this game becoming stand alone and/or Arma 3 Dayz, means money.

2. Sounds like you've mixed your persona into the .rar files you downloaded? This alpha can really go anywhere at this point. Its an alpha. The game, as it stands now, is great. I really enjoy it. I dont want to take away from the PvP side, I'd just like a less hardcore version at times.

3. Glad to see you agree with me. "Types of players" and "playstyle" are almost synonyms. I think the argument you were trying to make was, 'PvP/Bandits/Deathmatchers are on par with other playstyles'. Our argument was 'Choosing to help each other atm is seldom worth the risk/reward'.

In a Zombie-Apoc, from the vast majority of film and novels, people tend to stick together and only fight amongst them selves when low on supplies, or when the plot demands it. 'Bandits' are still a role there, and surely they exist, but it seems they should be the exception, and not the rule.

Shoot on sight yields the best rewards atm, and its far from the 'realism' one would expect from the zombie media we've all learn to love.

We still want shoot on sight. If I was in a group with someone who was annoying, messing up and attracting zombies, or hording supplies, I'd put a few through him. We dont want to "Nerf Bandits" or "Buff Survivors".

Also, I'm pretty sure Redz is trolling.

1. Really, if money was the main priority (or one of the main priorities) of this game, it would probably look more like CoD. The game is focused on a niche of players. Games never became better when money was at stake. What you actually want is make the game appeal to players who do not like this game, by making it another game.

And because people bought ArmA should not bother DayZ at all (because people did NOT pay Rocket), so that argument is terribly stupid. You also complain at Rocket when you bought ArmA2 and found out it was not what you want it to be?

2. Still the game has a core vision, which you want to deviate from to “appeal to a larger audience”. With commercial games it happens to often that the game is changed for the worse of the real fans to “appeal a larger audience”. We as actual fans of the game as it is don’t want to see the game taken from us to give it to that “larger audience”. Also, while the game is still a mod, the number of players is not a goal.

3. I don't know what you are talking about :P I'm just saying, the game should be accomodating to the current playstyles available, and not broaden too much to appeal to other people. Not have some weird Survivor vs Bandit TDM, because that is just not the point of the game

[gr0g88 0]

1. Really, if money was the main priority (or one of the main priorities) of this game, it would probably look more like CoD. The game is focused on a niche of players. Games never became better when money was at stake. What you actually want is make the game appeal to players who do not like this game, by making it another game.

And because people bought ArmA should not bother DayZ at all (because people did NOT pay Rocket), so that argument is terribly stupid. You also complain at Rocket when you bought ArmA2 and found out it was not what you want it to be?

2. Still the game has a core vision, which you want to deviate from to “appeal to a larger audience”. With commercial games it happens to often that the game is changed for the worse of the real fans to “appeal a larger audience”. We as actual fans of the game as it is don’t want to see the game taken from us to give it to that “larger audience”. Also, while the game is still a mod, the number of players is not a goal.

3. I don't know what you are talking about :P I'm just saying, the game should be accomodating to the current playstyles available, and not broaden too much to appeal to other people. Not have some weird Survivor vs Bandit TDM, because that is just not the point of the game

1. DayZ is growing like wild fire. The chances of it being put on a shelf for $50 is growing with the size of the community. If someone thinks they can make money off something, they will. Most people would agree they'd be willing to shell out cash when this game gets past the yet to be seen beta. The fact that so many people have bought Arma2 soley because they heard and saw DayZ speaks for itself. I don't care about Arma2, i really dont. Someone told me that some of the Arma2 team worked or works on DayZ team. Perhaps my "someone" was wrong? I am not sure.

2. Nobody wants to remove or ruin it. We're just sharing other ideas on how to make it better. Providing ideas to remedy a problem is more helpful than shooting down bad ones. Half the ideas I provided were bad. But they could spark thought and the devs could get something useful out of it.

3. Nobody wants TDM. It would ruin the game. I was just making a suggestion that we have a "Newb Server" or a "Pansy City" or something when you aren't in the mood for the die hard stuff. Perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps I'm in the minority, just voicing my thoughts.

[liquidje 38]

1. DayZ is growing like wild fire. The chances of it being put on a shelf for $50 is growing with the size of the community. If someone thinks they can make money off something' date=' they will. Most people would agree they'd be willing to shell out cash when this game gets past the yet to be seen beta. The fact that so many people have bought Arma2 soley because they heard and saw DayZ speaks for itself. I don't care about Arma2, i really dont. Someone told me that some of the Arma2 team worked or works on DayZ team. Perhaps my "someone" was wrong? I am not sure.

2. Nobody wants to remove or ruin it. We're just sharing other ideas on how to make it better. Providing ideas to remedy a problem is more helpful than shooting down bad ones. Half the ideas I provided were bad. But they could spark thought and the devs could get something useful out of it.

3. Nobody wants TDM. It would ruin the game. I was just making a suggestion that we have a "Newb Server" or a "Pansy City" or something when you aren't in the mood for the die hard stuff. Perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps I'm in the minority, just voicing my thoughts.

[/quote']

1. That's not my point. You say that DayZ should be built in such a way to make more money. Do you really think that prioritizing money would benefit the game? Because that is what the mass game industry has been doing for many, many years. And in that environment a game like this would never be able to be made.

2/3. I think I was understanding you incorrect then. And I DO agree that it would be best for the game to have split beginner and hardcore experiences, however this is for very late in the development process. Think about what may happen if hardcore people start going to the pantsy servers...

[gr0g88 0]

1. I'm not saying it should be built for a cash grab. I'm saying it is very likely imo, given the fact that people are eating it up faster than it can be handed out. But I think point 1 is so far off topic, we should move on :-/

2/3. If the hardcore flooded into the newbie servers, you'd be getting gameplay as is. Servers based on playstyle is just a thought. twist the idea around for abit, maybe we'll think of something that can benefit everyone without losing some of the magic that we've come to enjoy.

~An interesting thought, what if (WAYYYY later in development) a single player / 'bootcamp' style mission to teach how the game is played (looting etc), taking place during the initial outbreak? Then players could be prompted to join 'Atlanta 8 / PansyMode'.

[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.

True (as a fire is also "built" in some way). But WHAT you build should also not be artificial. But nowhere in this thread I can find anything about "building stuff"?

taken from the OP

build a small town/fortification

second part of his bullets.

The point is that a fortification is just a small building with some ways to prevent people from entering it. Yeah, you should be able to build these (you can already make a shed into such a fortification). However, usually people want mechanics so that bandits can't take their fortification as easily, or at least they want added bonusses next to the fact that you have a fortification.

Building a town would be ridiculous in my viewpoint.

maybe a full town would be ridculous but a small settlement that can be used as a trade post or a small area that provides security and a taste of society would be cool because it would allow players to interact more and at a deeper level, however this would require more dynamic loot spawns but dayz is in alpha so that could also be in the pipline ;)

[gr0g88 0]

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

[/quote']

True (as a fire is also "built" in some way). But WHAT you build should also not be artificial. But nowhere in this thread I can find anything about "building stuff"?

taken from the OP

build a small town/fortification

second part of his bullets.

The point is that a fortification is just a small building with some ways to prevent people from entering it. Yeah, you should be able to build these (you can already make a shed into such a fortification). However, usually people want mechanics so that bandits can't take their fortification as easily, or at least they want added bonusses next to the fact that you have a fortification.

Building a town would be ridiculous in my viewpoint.

maybe a full town would be ridculous but a small settlement that can be used as a trade post or a small area that provides security and a taste of society would be cool because it would allow players to interact more and at a deeper level, however this would require more dynamic loot spawns but dayz is in alpha so that could also be in the pipline ;)

People are complaining about how stale the current map is. I'm bringing this up because:

What is servers ran maps with purpose? Have a map designed for trading, and community stuff. For example, on the west of the current map, make a 'cut off' point, so if you save your character there, you can spawn in the next map (to the west). joining a server on that map, without being near the "transfer area" could result in you not being allowed in, or maybe spawn in a red box saying go to a different server or something. Maybe even each map/area could have its own respawn points for better ability to play with friends.

^this will make vehicles 100x more usful

^225km is big, but with this idea, there is no theoretical limit to how big the play size could be.

[liquidje 38]

maybe a full town would be ridculous but a small settlement that can be used as a trade post or a small area that provides security and a taste of society would be cool because it would allow players to interact more and at a deeper level' date=' however this would require more dynamic loot spawns but dayz is in alpha so that could also be in the pipline ;)

[/quote']

Yeah that is the problem I'm talking about, of artificial mechanics. Having a place which is safe either requires

1. heavy, very heavy protection to keep out evildoers, bandits and to have some social control. If it's public, we are talking about maybe 72 manhours of protection AT LEAST per 24 hours, spread over these 24 hours.

2. An artificial mechanic to prevent people from fucking up the order in the camp.

Point 1 can actually already be done with the current engine and the mechanics, or better yet, the lack of mechanics. 2 is artificial, so it's not desirable in a sandbox game.

See where I'm going at? Control has to be done by the players or by a mechanic, and the first solution has the problem that that is extremely hard in an environment where nobody can be trusted, while the second solution is not desirable.

How would you see this? Try to think of a clear mechanic, instead of putting out some vague outline of an idea.

People are complaining about how stale the current map is. I'm bringing this up because:

What is servers ran maps with purpose? Have a map designed for trading' date=' and community stuff. For example, on the west of the current map, make a 'cut off' point, so if you save your character there, you can spawn in the next map (to the west). joining a server on that map, without being near the "transfer area" could result in you not being allowed in, or maybe spawn in a red box saying go to a different server or something. Maybe even each map/area could have its own respawn points for better ability to play with friends.

^this will make vehicles 100x more usful

^225km is big, but with this idea, there is no theoretical limit to how big the play size could be.

[/quote']

So you actually propose the current game, but with a virtual map which is very very large. People are already bitching about running for 30 minutes for their friends, good luck getting them to run for hours. Also, how do you think a "community" map or a "trade" map would look like, and how would it be different from what we have now?

[Friend-or-Pho 0]

I think some people have completely missed the point here. Incentivizing teamwork doesn't have to come in the form of actual "bonuses" or perks. Part of what I suggested was for there to be more end-game content that gave more purpose to not only surviving but also teaming up. There would be no reward beyond the content itself, I dont know why anyone would think fixing a helicopter would reward with beans. That kind of reward system has nothing to do with this thread.