This is the MOST antisocial game ever

[jani.ehro@gmail.com 1]

If you look at game theories and game "rules" in this game, then it is obivious that nothing good in social way is bound to happen in the game field.

By game theories I mean this:

(this is theoretical situation now and the numbers vary by player and definately are not measured with scientifitical measures, but are merely estimates.)

-you have around 65% chance being fired by player that you randomly meet in field

-if you fire first, you will have 80% chance of survival

-if you let him fire first you will survive with 25% chance

What is the chance of surviving if you do not fire at sight?

a) enemy player wont fire to you: 35%

+

b)65%*20% = 13%

Chance of survival: 48%

What is the chance of survival, if you fire at sight all players?

you get to fire first

a)35% (player is not going to fire at u) * 80% (chance of survival: you first first) = 28%

b)65% (player will shoot on sight) * 50% (you get to fire first - while both will shoot on sight) * 80% (chance of survival: you first first)= 26%

c)65% (player will shoot on sight) * 50% (he gets to take the first shoot) *20% (chance of survival: he fire first) = 6,5%

Chance of survival: 60,5%

Then lets talk about losing and gaining.

If you get shot at - you will lose everything. So will you risk it after looking at above numbers? After looking at this game theory, I would say the setting is driving this game more and more into anti social bit by bit.

What can be done?

depends if you want it to be antisocial or not... but you have ways to turn it into more social:

-survivors and bandits are in opposing teams (east / west) -> team chat is enabled only for survivors

-if opposing team players are seen, a static marker is put on the map at the location where player was seen at for 4 minutes

-enable forming groups in game

[cpstörd 7]

Yay more suggestions to destroy the game!

[fackstah 31]

you thought to hard about this

and got alpha'd

[ihax 16]

forming groups in game would be nice. But having Teams would be kinda the opposite of what this game wants. You're supposed to do what you can to survive, you take the risk of joining random players and if they stab you in the back then so be it. That's how the game is supposed to be played out. Not some Team vs Team death match.

[esaciar 1]

No opposing teams.

It would murder this game straight off.

[Publik 404]

1. make up some numbers

2. combine them in some way

3. reach a conclusion

???

7. suggest that the game be easier

[jani.ehro@gmail.com 1]

No opposing teams.

It would murder this game straight off.

please be specific why you think it would destroy the game?

as a bandit you couldnt kill everyone on sight still??

as a survivor you couldnt kill survivors?

please use argumentation. The fact that you ASSUME it would destroy the game definately does not mean it would destroy the game xD

Arguments are welcome.

[clever 12]

argumentation.

Oh lord.

See, this game isn't suppose to be a team vs. team game. The main appeal of this game is that you're alone, and no one is going to help you. If you're lucky you'll find one friendly guy to help, but otherwise you're going to have to be careful who you trust. If you want a team vs. team apocalypse game, play that Wasteland mod for Arma or something.

[fackstah 31]

[Blaaaaaaag 75]

Your maths are arbitrary and prove nothing.

Also, forming groups in game *is* enabled, I've done it many times. Just last night, I was fired upon, shouted "don't shoot, I don't want to shoot you!" into the direct chat, and made a new friend.

I posit that it is you that is antisocial.

[jani.ehro@gmail.com 1]

argumentation.

Oh lord.

See' date=' this game isn't suppose to be a team vs. team game. The main appeal of this game is that you're alone, and no one is going to help you. If you're lucky you'll find one friendly guy to help, but otherwise you're going to have to be careful who you trust. If you want a team vs. team apocalypse game, play that Wasteland mod for Arma or something.

[/quote']

And the fact that you are placed in a team for having seperate communication channel for survivors and murderers makes this a team game?

seriously - you can even now kill ppl in same team. It would hardly chance anything. It would just give a chance for those that are looking for friendly players have a slighlky higher chance to find them without them shooting back :)

[salty (DayZ) 39]

asocial*

If you're going to attempt to talk psychology at least use proper terminology.

[clever 12]

argumentation.

Oh lord.

See' date=' this game isn't suppose to be a team vs. team game. The main appeal of this game is that you're alone, and no one is going to help you. If you're lucky you'll find one friendly guy to help, but otherwise you're going to have to be careful who you trust. If you want a team vs. team apocalypse game, play that Wasteland mod for Arma or something.

[/quote']

And the fact that you are placed in a team for having seperate communication channel for survivors and murderers makes this a team game?

seriously - you can even now kill ppl in same team. It would hardly chance anything. It would just give a chance for those that are looking for friendly players have a slighlky higher chance to find them without them shooting back :)

If you want to find friendly survivors, join a survivor group or play with friends.

[liquidje 38]

If you look at game theories and game "rules" in this game' date=' then it is obivious that nothing good in social way is bound to happen in the game field.

By game theories I mean this:

(this is theoretical situation now and the numbers vary by player and definately are not measured with scientifitical measures, but are merely estimates.)

-you have around 65% chance being fired by player that you randomly meet in field

-if you fire first, you will have 80% chance of survival

-if you let him fire first you will survive with 25% chance

What is the chance of surviving if you do not fire at sight?

a) enemy player wont fire to you: 35%

+

b)65%*20% = 13%

Chance of survival: 48%

What is the chance of survival, if you fire at sight all players?

you get to fire first

a)35% (player is not going to fire at u) * 80% (chance of survival: you first first) = 28%

b)65% (player will shoot on sight) * 50% (you get to fire first - while both will shoot on sight) * 80% (chance of survival: you first first)= 26%

c)65% (player will shoot on sight) * 50% (he gets to take the first shoot) *20% (chance of survival: he fire first) = 6,5%

Chance of survival: 60,5%

[/quote']

Changing some of these numbers will give a complete opposite experience. For example, 65% of the encounters result in a fight? I don't know HOW many other people have passed without noticing me, and I let them live. Seriously, just throwing with numbers does not prove anything.

What can be done?

depends if you want it to be antisocial or not... but you have ways to turn it into more social:

-survivors and bandits are in opposing teams (east / west) -> team chat is enabled only for survivors

-if opposing team players are seen' date=' a static marker is put on the map at the location where player was seen at for 4 minutes

-enable forming groups in game

[/quote']

please be specific why you think it would destroy the game?

as a bandit you couldnt kill everyone on sight still??

as a survivor you couldnt kill survivors?

please use argumentation. The fact that you ASSUME it would destroy the game definately does not mean it would destroy the game xD

Arguments are welcome.

Team just don't work' date=' as it is not in line with the game. iHax already explained it quite well:

forming groups in game would be nice. But having Teams would be kinda the opposite of what this game wants. You're supposed to do what you can to survive, you take the risk of joining random players and if they stab you in the back then so be it. That's how the game is supposed to be played out. Not some Team vs Team death match.

This is not a TDM game.

seriously - you can even now kill ppl in same team. It would hardly chance anything. It would just give a chance for those that are looking for friendly players have a slighlky higher chance to find them without them shooting back :)

You know what would happen then?

Bandit gets killed, joins as a survivor. Groups up with one or two survivors with better gear. Gains their trust, shoots them in the back. Repeat.

Seriously, the game does NOT need some team system (at least like this) to prohibit PvP, as PvP should not be prohibited. A survivor could kill as he HAS to (no supplies, in self defense), and then he turns into a bandit and switches teams?

[Janeral 0]

Chance of embarrassing yourself with this thread:

100%

[novaseline 3]

It would destroy the game. They might as well make Cod50, by your terms. Then throw zombies in it.

What they should do. Is put in more fortifications things for players. Then clans would have something to do. Then you could join a clan. Then not ruin the game.

I can see clan wars for supplies or posts, due to this. Which would happen in real life. Will be murderous clans, friendly clans. Then would stop some of "fire on sight" mentality. For if certain clans play on 1 server(that saves the fortifications). Then you'd be familiar with certain players. Then team up on any new name that crossed yer sights. Could even require people in your clan to wear certain outfits.

That idea does not break the game. Then it also uses more brain power. Than said fake numbers, to make this Cod with zombies.

[xls.akm@gmail.com 0]

So how did you come up with those numbers? Just curious.

[fml 29]

That's what I thought, until today. 4th day playing the game, succesfully met up with a player, turned into 2 players, then 3, then 4. We looted the airfields and some bandits and had the best time ever. Keep trying to group up, dont let the bandits ruin your experience.

[jani.ehro@gmail.com 1]

If you look at game theories and game "rules" in this game' date=' then it is obivious that nothing good in social way is bound to happen in the game field.

By game theories I mean this:

(this is theoretical situation now and the numbers vary by player and definately are not measured with scientifitical measures, but are merely estimates.)

-you have around 65% chance being fired by player that you randomly meet in field

-if you fire first, you will have 80% chance of survival

-if you let him fire first you will survive with 25% chance

What is the chance of surviving if you do not fire at sight?

a) enemy player wont fire to you: 35%

+

b)65%*20% = 13%

Chance of survival: 48%

What is the chance of survival, if you fire at sight all players?

you get to fire first

a)35% (player is not going to fire at u) * 80% (chance of survival: you first first) = 28%

b)65% (player will shoot on sight) * 50% (you get to fire first - while both will shoot on sight) * 80% (chance of survival: you first first)= 26%

c)65% (player will shoot on sight) * 50% (he gets to take the first shoot) *20% (chance of survival: he fire first) = 6,5%

Chance of survival: 60,5%

[/quote']

Changing some of these numbers will give a complete opposite experience. For example, 65% of the encounters result in a fight? I don't know HOW many other people have passed without noticing me, and I let them live. Seriously, just throwing with numbers does not prove anything.

Team just don't work, as it is not in line with the game. iHax already explained it quite well:

forming groups in game would be nice. But having Teams would be kinda the opposite of what this game wants. You're supposed to do what you can to survive, you take the risk of joining random players and if they stab you in the back then so be it. That's how the game is supposed to be played out. Not some Team vs Team death match.

This is not a TDM game.

seriously - you can even now kill ppl in same team. It would hardly chance anything. It would just give a chance for those that are looking for friendly players have a slighlky higher chance to find them without them shooting back :)

You know what would happen then?

Bandit gets killed' date=' joins as a survivor. Groups up with one or two survivors with better gear. Gains their trust, shoots them in the back. Repeat.

Seriously, the game does NOT need some team system (at least like this) to prohibit PvP, as PvP should not be prohibited. A survivor could kill as he HAS to (no supplies, in self defense), and then he turns into a bandit and switches teams?

[/quote']

Its not a TDM game, and i completely aggree with it.

The first mistake you make is that you assume that forming a group would remove friendly fire by my suggestion. No in my idea u would still be able to kill people and stab them in their backs. The idea would only give slightly better tools to group up and find people to play together with. Everything else would stay the same.

And as far as i know its not very easy to redeem onself from bandit state.

But you are throwing hypotheses that are only hypotheses. Only by testing you would actually know how it affects.

[liquidje 38]

Its not a TDM game' date=' and i completely aggree with it.

The first mistake you make is that you assume that forming a group would remove friendly fire by my suggestion. No in my idea u would still be able to kill people and stab them in their backs. The idea would only give slightly better tools to group up and find people to play together with. Everything else would stay the same.

And as far as i know its not very easy to redeem onself from bandit state.

But you are throwing hypotheses that are only hypotheses. Only by testing you would actually know how it affects.

[/quote']

You did not read my post at all, did you? I understand your idea still includes FF, but with FF it does not add anything, especially for people who have accidentally become bandits, or bandits in general. People who have killed in the past are not able to group up with other people.

It just does not add up. Putting people in teams, which can also change within one gunshot, is just not in line with the game. It either gives a false sense of security, or it gives actual security, of which the latter is not in line with the actual feeling the game wants to give you. Lastly, as system to accommodate forming groups both gives you security (which should be avoided), but also can be attained with a more specific system, instead of a whole team system with a by-effect of easily forming parties.

[jani.ehro@gmail.com 1]

That's what I thought' date=' until today. 4th day playing the game, succesfully met up with a player, turned into 2 players, then 3, then 4. We looted the airfields and some bandits and had the best time ever. Keep trying to group up, dont let the bandits ruin your experience.

[/quote']

I am personally a bandit, since it gives better chances of survival, gears u up faster and lets u act as a survivor any given moment, if it suits u the best. I also only play with squad (guild for us). Shoot first ask questions later is the way to play.

But - Yeah u can group up even now. There is nothing to prevent it. I am just thinking it would be off better if there was better tools to find people to play with. And i say this caus i know what kind of player i am and most are.

Also group tools are highly required for team (squad/team) players.

[Buddhajca 0]

I think I speak for everyone when I say:

No

[ihax 16]

That's what I thought' date=' until today. 4th day playing the game, succesfully met up with a player, turned into 2 players, then 3, then 4. We looted the airfields and some bandits and had the best time ever. Keep trying to group up, dont let the bandits ruin your experience.

[/quote']

I am personally a bandit, since it gives better chances of survival, gears u up faster and lets u act as a survivor any given moment, if it suits u the best. I also only play with squad (guild for us). Shoot first ask questions later is the way to play.

But - Yeah u can group up even now. There is nothing to prevent it. I am just thinking it would be off better if there was better tools to find people to play with. And i say this caus i know what kind of player i am and most are.

Also group tools are highly required for team (squad/team) players.

in your original post you are stating you want teams, but now you are stating that is not what you mean, and that you just want ways to find better ways to group up? I'm confused on what you are trying to get at now.

[dale0404 16]

@OP Backtracking much?

[snipes (DayZ) 12]

Grouping up elements could be as simple as a player finding some item like a cloth and then everyone who meets up can put a bit of cloth around an arm or something so there is an identifiable mark. That would be cool and also help you spot your friends in a firefight and avoid the accidental murders :D

It could also add a new element of play and infiltration for example if you start tracking a group of players and see them wearing red cloth on their arms, you could start wearing some that you have found infiltrate the group follow them to their hideout/base, call all your clan in and steal everything. Would be great fun and not beyond the 'reality' this game is trying to portray.

Your ideas for actually teaming people up though is wrong and I agree with what everyone here has said about it. If you want a team deathmatch then you need to find another game. If you want a game where ultimately you are on your own then you will understand that teams wont work and groups are an agreed level of trust between players rather than a game mechanic (can't think of the right word to use).