Stop saying "friendly" and immediately trusting me

[Cpt.Vilja 15]

Playing as a lone wolf. I never shoot people if they arent a theard for me. If i see a unarmed player i am carefull, if i see a armed player i hide and watch his actions. If he does something wrong like shooting a unarmed guy i kill him. Yesterday i was in cherno agian. Found a Lee Enfield and heard a car. Behind me on my left side i heard somebody running. I turrned around and saw a guy with a hatchet running to me. He yelled "FRIENDLY" when i aimed on him. I just said Dont come colser or i shoot you.. he tryed to hack me with his ahatchet. Then i got angry and yelled back " WTF do you think you are ?!" and shoot him 2 times in his breast. I mean i was kinda mad.. he could get out of here alive but i had to shot him..

[Dial555 4TURTLE 0]

To all

Loving the threads. Haven't started the game yet, waiting on my new system being delivered so I thought I'd do some research on how to play DayZ and what kind of people play DayZ.

Let me express, I am loving the fact that some choose to be friendly and others choose to be opportunists and/or arseholes. I would like my experience to be as realistic to the Zompocalypse as possible and if some opportunist/arsehole declares friendly and then shoots me in the head for my beans then more fool me!

Keep it up ladies and gents, looking forward to seeing you on the survivor island/battlefield/arsehole factory.

[Obsolescence 129]

Evolutionary forces dictate that those that focus on individual survival at the expense of a group are an evolutionary dead end. Humanity evolved to hate the other. If you attack a group you become the other, and all of a sudden those nice fluffy care bears who work together to build a community to survive come rip you apart. It was true at the dawn of man, it'd be true during a massive die-off.

The dawn of man and a massive die-off cannot be presumed to necessarily produce the exact same evolutionary/social strategies.

Actually, I agree more with your point in a real-world setting and when looking at a macro picture of the scenario, but individual interactions that don't take place with any witnesses would not function similarly.You can only attack the group and become the other if some mechanism 'outs you' as 'the other.' If me and one survivor interact, and I can kill him without anyone else knowing, what risk or consequence is there for killing him, taking his shit, and just joining the "fluffy care bears" later when I'm no longer alone?

This is why I hope the standalone will only allow 1 account/profile name per account. Even if I play on the same server, and generally with the same strangers every day, if at some point people catch on to the fact that I'm a friendly poser, I can just change my name and anonymity here we go again. Forcing people to stick to one moniker will increase the risk of being an asshole to people. Also, I think it might be fun if DayZ allowed people to go to the users profile and write 'reviews' of the player (vote on whether they are more hero or bandit, and provide a description of your interaction with them). Of course, this suggestion may be open to abuse or harrassment, but I believe without some way of chaining a users action to the players reputation, there will be no effective counter to douche-baggery.

[FreshmeatDK 22]

While I think that OP is pretty low in his actions, he hit the head on the nail. As of now, the risks of teaming up with strangers far outweigh the benefits. I would very much like some tasks that required cooperation. In the extreme, the only healing could come from gear that was very easily acquired, but only could be done by another player. Or some valuable kit only being accessible through teamwork.

[sarcasm83 29]

Get some REAL LIFE friends and play with them?

Mumma always said "dont talk to strangers"

Well, none of my real friends play DayZ, unfortunately. I guess I could try talking a few into it though.

I'd just prefer some honesty, in-game... If someone is going to kill me, I hope they act the part... instead of calling out friendly and acting friendly until I start trusting them and then taking the sure kill, shooting me from behind while I look out to cover us both. I mean, that just pisses players off and if OP is that good at gearing up as he says he is, he shouldn't have to resort to things like that to begin with.

AND it's way easier looking for rare loot together and picking up the rarest best finds, than getting the basic gear and then killing someone to get pretty much the same basic gear and a few things you can use.

I mean, my inventory is always almost full anyway and I only look for rare items or the things I'm in need off. Killing a player for his full inventory is pretty non-beneficial to me, unless he just so happens to have something rare. And I'd still rather take my chances on finding everything I need with the help of an extra pair of eyes accompanying me...

But hey, it's just a matter of preferance... you like to play like that, I like to play like this so.... not that I'm judging you.... It's just that I keep getting crap from other players 90% of the time and the 10% of the time is encounters I'm actually hoping for so it's a bit depressing every now and then. I think it'd make for cooler experiences to build up alliances, groups and roleplay a little more instead of all the "run and gun, kill everything for loot" approach... but again, that's just my opinion.

[rollo23 57]

Yea im the same i usually shoot people on sight (even unarmed noobs) simply because they are a risk, everyone will kill you on this game if you give them the chance better them than you.

[sp86 508]

The dawn of man and a massive die-off cannot be presumed to necessarily produce the exact same evolutionary/social strategies.

Obviously not, given the capacity to salvage High Power weaponry a human can ascend to the rank of apex predator without a group, something our prehistoric ancestors couldn't dream of. We also have access to the collective knowledge of thousands of years of history, at least those who would bother to seek it out. The forces are similar however. An individual human is vulnerable, they sleep, get sick, get injured, and cannot effectively produce and protect offspring. This is the fundamental basis (And need) for the human pack, and larger human social groups.

Actually, I agree more with your point in a real-world setting and when looking at a macro picture of the scenario, but individual interactions that don't take place with any witnesses would not function similarly. You can only attack the group and become the other if some mechanism 'outs you' as 'the other.' If me and one survivor interact, and I can kill him without anyone else knowing, what risk or consequence is there for killing him, taking his shit, and just joining the "fluffy care bears" later when I'm no longer alone?

This is true, there is no magic mark that murder leaves on a person, but a pattern of behavior will eventually out a murderer or compromise the integrity of a group.

This is why I hope the standalone will only allow 1 account/profile name per account. Even if I play on the same server, and generally with the same strangers every day, if at some point people catch on to the fact that I'm a friendly poser, I can just change my name and anonymity here we go again. Forcing people to stick to one moniker will increase the risk of being an asshole to people. Also, I think it might be fun if DayZ allowed people to go to the users profile and write 'reviews' of the player (vote on whether they are more hero or bandit, and provide a description of your interaction with them). Of course, this suggestion may be open to abuse or harrassment, but I believe without some way of chaining a users action to the players reputation, there will be no effective counter to douche-baggery.

Both interesting suggestions, if your humanity were additionally tied to a sort of karma system it would effectively isolate exploiters from people who legitimately deserve a certain reputation (Either good or ill), and allow people who murder in secret to play the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

Edited September 5, 2012 by sp86

[Steve.C 23]

IRL, there is power in numbers. One set of eyes cannot cover all approach angles while cooking, one set of eyes cannot stand watch while sleeping, one set of ears cannot hear every twig snapping. You cannot remain alert up close while set up on a hillside preparing to shoot an animal 500m away, and you cannot see your enemies at afar when you're clearing houses up close. A solitary survivor cannot drag himself to safety after a catastrophic injury. Lone wolves live dangerous lives and often die without ever seeing their enemies.

One thing the OP brings up that currently bothers me is the ability to change names. He's a coward and a traitor, and can change names and appearance whenever he wants. Even if we were to get his in-game name, which he won't give out because we'd hunt him down, he can change it on a whim. Even if we were to get his physical appearance, he can change it on a whim.

[Baddum12 2]

survival is too easy and communication is too difficult.

Not a flame, just a suggestion.

If you are like me and enjoy a challenge in a video game, it seems like the benefit of not killing others is that you are challenged with honing your online communication skills in a game where you feel communication is difficult. In fact, since you feel survival is already too easy, it seems that while you see no benefit to not killing someone else, there might also be no benefit in killing them since you feel as though your survival is already pretty much guaranteed.

Again, just a suggestion. I've got no problem with you killing people.

[Baddum12 2]

Get some REAL LIFE friends and play with them?

Try to realize that this is the year 2012, and having relationships via the internet is not exactly a new idea. Even in real life we have different circles of friends. A core group of friends you've known for years, friends you met through your girlfriend/boyfriend and coworkers are just a few examples. It's definitely not an alien idea to consider "people I have met in online games" just another circle of friends that may or may not one day interact with your other circles.

[M O N S T E R 599]

Green.

-MONSTER

[Petri (DayZ) 14]

Well obviously a "humanity" number doesn't make any difference. Have you considered that perhaps in a real zombie apocalypse, there may be no consequences for the actions of amoral sociopaths?

Have you considered that in real zombie apocalypse you might be the first ones to bite the dust? no respawns.

[4Lex 15]

I went to the effort today to give a freshly spawned player a gun (Was only a remington but I trying to get rid of it) I placed it on ground saluted him and walked away...

BANG BANG BANG

Dead, Coyote backpack and m24 gone.

Time and time again I tell my self never trust any one. Yet I continually trust people. For some reason I find it hard to gun down an unarmed or not well equipped player, Despite how many times it has lead to my death

Im got a Hero skin, i've helped some survivors out there, but to give them weapons and simply turn my back and walk away, that i'll never do ...

[bazbake 456]

Did those "friendlies" I shot in the head have honor? I swear I swiped almost every item off their dead corpse but I never saw any honor.

Every time I inspect a corpse, I never see any intelligence, fear, hate, or memories either. Just this strange "killedby" I never quite understand.

And I'm not a coward, I'm an opportunist. When you say, "friendly," I hear, "if you say friendly back to me, I'll turn around and let you shoot me in the head and take all my stuff."

op·por·tun·ist

n.

One who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences.

Hm. Let's check the thesaurus.

self-seeker, backscratcher, bottom-feeder...

Sounds about right. Oh, what's this...

cow·ard

n.

One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Yeah. Obscolescence, looks like you're an opportunist and a coward. Which is a completely valid way to play the game, of course, but don't start redefining what words mean just because you don't like them.

Edited September 5, 2012 by BazBake

[DemonSlayer666 5]

Don't expect other players to treat you like a person when you are just a cartoon.

It's part of the game, and the game has it's limitations. It's not real life. It's entertainment.

I'm not condoning the OPs actions, but I agree with what he is saying.

[MarlDaeSu 1]

hahahah thats a pretty good post, highly enjoyed that.

But, you say there is no benefit to having people alive and that you are trying to live as long as possible, and your forgetting an essential part of the game, having fun. What your doing is trying to beat a high score that doesnt exist.

Love it though, you need people like you on dayZ making it more terrifying

[sp86 508]

Don't expect other players to treat you like a person when you are just a cartoon.

What, like Pokemon? Or like Ninja Scroll?

Edited September 5, 2012 by sp86

[Obsolescence 129]

Not a flame, just a suggestion.

If you are like me and enjoy a challenge in a video game, it seems like the benefit of not killing others is that you are challenged with honing your online communication skills in a game where you feel communication is difficult. In fact, since you feel survival is already too easy, it seems that while you see no benefit to not killing someone else, there might also be no benefit in killing them since you feel as though your survival is already pretty much guaranteed.

Again, just a suggestion. I've got no problem with you killing people.

Again, as a pragmatic opportunist, I'm not naturally inclined to take a path with a higher risk/reward ratio. Even if I feel survival is too easy, there is no pragmatic rationale to just make things artificially more difficult on myself by attempting to communicate with or trust strangers. As I mentioned in the OP, this situation only occurs when I'm a freshspawn, because up north once I'm geared everyone is KoS anyway, so there is no opportunity for this kind of behavior.

I do enjoy challenge in my video games. I like overcoming those challenges as effeciently as possible. My only goal is to survive, get loot, and kill anyone who stands as an obstacle to my two primary goals. If communicating with strangers or cooperating with them provided me with a greater ability to survive or get loot I would certainly do so. However, in my experience strangers will only kill you or get you killed, and even if niether of those occur I will be penalizing myself by not taking the loot they have that I don't.

[W1Z22 33]

im friendly but if you look at me with an ax or weapon without lowering... you are dead

[Obsolescence 129]

op·por·tun·ist

n.

One who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences.

cow·ard

n.

One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Yeah. Obscolescence, looks like you're an opportunist and a coward. Which is a completely valid way to play the game, of course, but don't start redefining what words mean just because you don't like them.

When do you think I'm displaying any fear at all? I'm not afraid of my opponent killing me, before or during our "friendly" interaction. Differentially, a coward is motivated by fear and an opportunist is motivated by opportunity. When one of the interactions I've described in the OP occurs, a coward would simply run away from the engagement all together, because the coward is undoubtedly safer far removed from the prescence of others.

I'm not pretending to be friendly to avoid "danger or pain," and I'm never the first one to call out, "friendly!," I only respond as friendly when someone else initiates that interaction. The only reason I mimic as a friendly player is to make killing my opponent easier and less risky to me because that opportunity is better for my primary goals of survival and loot acquirement.

A coward takes the path that induces the least amount of fear and risk.

I take the path that produces greater reward for less risk.

If everyone who takes a path of less risk is a coward then the only non-cowards that exist in this game are fools, continuously firing off their weapons at full-auto while sprinting straight to NWAFB or the closest player they can see.

So, BazBake, by your own applications are you a coward or a fool?

Edited September 5, 2012 by Obsolescence

[Obsolescence 129]

hahahah thats a pretty good post, highly enjoyed that.

But, you say there is no benefit to having people alive and that you are trying to live as long as possible, and your forgetting an essential part of the game, having fun. What your doing is trying to beat a high score that doesnt exist.

Love it though, you need people like you on dayZ making it more terrifying

For me, fun is seeing my Day X counter go +1. Fun is surviving another encounter with a stranger. Fun is finding that piece of loot I've been itching for on a corpse made fresh by my bullet (or someone else's bullet, I'm not picky ;) ).

You are right that I'm trying to beat a high score, in some sense, that doesn't exist, but honestly what else is there to do in Dayz or any game for that matter? We're all going to die one day in real life. The idea of trying to tie substantial meaning to any of this, video game or otherwise, is rather futile, yes?

Edited September 5, 2012 by Obsolescence

[Obsolescence 129]

Have you considered that in real zombie apocalypse you might be the first ones to bite the dust? no respawns.

I see no evidence or rationale to suggest that ammoral sociopaths would be any more likely to die in the initial stages of a real-life apocalypse, zombie or otherwise, and you haven't provided any.

[sp86 508]

I think if this thread has proven anything it's that if there were a Karma style Humanity system where people could list interactions with you and either vote you positive or negative the surest way to go negative would not be to be a dick in game, but to say something provocative on the forums.

[Obsolescence 129]

I think if this thread has proven anything it's that if there were a Karma style Humanity system where people could list interactions with you and either vote you positive or negative the surest way to go negative would not be to be a dick in game, but to say something provocative on the forums.

Great point lol. When I mentioned being able to rate people based on in-game interactions and having only 1 profile/name per account, I completely forgot that people could penalize you for forum posts. That could be an issue! Have my beans!

[director 12]

there are two rules for "friendly" gameplay

1. never gear up, shootgun is all you need

2. kill badits asap

if you dont have good gear you dont have nothing to lose, so even if you are killed you can gear up in few minutes.

if he have bandit skin he is bandit, losing bandit skin if you kill one survivor in defense is pretty easy so dont belive in those bullshit story that they are bandits becouse they defeneded against survivor who attacked him.