Human <100% --- Humanity --- 0%> Zed

[6raham 90]

Suggestion:

The humanity mechanic be applied to a percentage slider that morphs the player between a healthy Human and a Zed, offering many different pros, cons, and gameplay options depending on their level of infection. At one end of the scale, the player is Human and behaves like a Human. At the other end of the scale the player is a Zed and behaves like a Zed. Humanity is raised by behaving benevolently, and lowered by behaving malevolently. This mechanic would put the emphasis on the player to think more about their actions and the consequences of their actions, good or bad, and would create huge diversity of players and individual playing styles. It would make Zeds more relevant through meshing the 'zombie' scenario deeply into the game, and add infinite gameplay possibilities that would be controlled by player actions.

Gameplay mechanics:

Right now we have heroes and bandits which are effectively the same thing, each having neither penalties or benefits, making the morphing mechanism cosmetic only.

I propose replacing Hero with Human, Bandit with Zed, and scaling the Humanity level between 100% and 0%. This is supposed to be a post viral scenario, so the risk of infection would still be a very real danger. In this scenario let's suppose that everyone is ALREADY infected. To stay Human, the player has to avoid the violent behaviour that aggravates the virus and causes negative symptoms (see: The Humanity Syndrome backstory below), eg. no killing of players that are more Human than their own level of infection, or stealing from backpacks and other camps.

Positive actions like helping others with healing and giving items increases Humanity. Conversely, killing Humans or stealing from them would decrease Humanity and make Zed symptoms more pronounced, which would have their own set of benefits and drawbacks. The player could choose the right balance for their playing style and keep their Humanity level at that point through careful decision making, or simply go with the flow and fluctuate up and down the scale as they play, using the benefits of each. An endgame condition that dictates once at 0%, Humanity CANNOT be gained and the player lives (and eventually dies) as a fully infected Zed would give players more incentive to control their Humanity level through smart decision making and less indiscriminate killing.

Note that ALL PLAY STYLES WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE, you would just have to think more about the consequences, and how to balance your Humanity level at a point you are happy with - whether you like to camp and snipe, raid camps, or run around cherno as a medic, with this system YOU STILL COULD - as long as you are aware of the cost of your actions, and are aware that everyone else will also be considering the same.

Human / Zed pros and cons:

Depending on their Humanity percentage, in 10% increments (more or less), transitional morphing from one state to the next would show: Changing skin textures, changing clothing textures, difference in motor control, optical effects (thermal), NPC Zed tolerance changes, dropping of items, etc.

An example morphing table showing pros and cons of the two extremes:

The Humanity Syndrome: a backstory

The Hauser Sherrington virus, commonly referred to as 'Zed' but also known as the 'Darwin line' virus, originated in South-East Asia as a naturally occurring but rare microbacterial organism found in the cerebrospinal fluid of the Rhesus Macaque. The organism, dormant and harmless to its host, mutated during space programme testing at The Sochi Institute of Medical Primatology in Russia and can now be transmitted to Humans.

The virus is passed via direct contact and multiplies in the cerebrospinal fluid of Humans, usually aged between 11 and 60, where it reacts negatively to a particular synapse activity associated with instinctive, violent or animalistic behaviour. The virus attaches itself to the synapses, amplifying the same neurological processes that act as its catalyst, effectively increasing the affect of altering synapse and neuron function exponentially, resulting in a rapid degeneration of motor control and cognitive behaviour to a violent, almost zombie-like animal state.

Hauser Sherrington has an incubation period of 10 hours where the infected subject typically becomes less human and more animalistic in behaviour. Major symptoms include:

Lack of motor control

Lack of cognitive thought

Inability to use even simple tools

Agitation increased by confrontation

Very high pain threshold due to inhibited receptors

Decreased temperature

Increased physical strength

Increased thermal sensory ability

Uncontrollable twitches/shouts

Exertion haemorrhaging

A thesis by professor Hauser, American biologist and behavioural expert, suggests the virus "in its dormant state appears to be in many respects a kind of 'Darwin line', a synaptic governer between animal and Human behaviour - a chemical barrier between Us and Them". He goes on to suggest that "negative thoughts and actions actually promote the potency of the virus through electrical and chemical stimulation, the more the subject is exposed to negative activities such as anger and violence, the more violent they become, spiralling out of control until they no longer have any Humanistic abilities at all... their own behaviour is amplified a thousandfold and the divide breaks down, they become the animal inside themselves".

According to a controversial claim by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England before his death, the virus is "the hand of God dividing the righteous from the ever increasing sinned of our time". He suggested that "the chaos and violence of today has reached such proportions that an intervention was inevitable", and that "His plague will count the Just from the dead".

At this time there is no known antidote, though Professor Hauser and his team are researching the possibility of reversing the symptoms of the virus through positive cognitive and behavioural therapy.

tl;dr

Player morphing between Human and Zed depending on own actions, governed by Humanity percentage level.

Apologies if it has been discussed before, also if I have repeated myself. And come on... who DOESN'T want to play as a Zed at some point?

That is all.

Edited September 4, 2012 by 6raham

[torturedchunk 22]

Well done. I like the idea. I like the back story and I'm sure it will catch rockets eye.

Beans given!

[Marshmallow (DayZ) 33]

Why are people so bent on punishing players for playing as bandits?

I've never killed anyone except in self-defense and I always play as a survivor, but the game would be awfully boring without people who want to be strict, cold-blooded murders. There's nothing wrong with players who want to achieve a negative humanity score because in a real apocalypse there would be chaos, looting, and villainy. Just because someone plays as a bandit doesn't mean their abilities should magically change or they morph into some inhuman thing. It's just a choice and we all get killed and restart at some point.

I think the problem is some players expect DayZ to be a game where you have one character and you're supposed to survive ad infinitum and unless you're the good guy, you should be struck down. That's wrong. We all get killed at some point and appear back on the coast and in some ways it's nice to have fresh start. Just try to survive as long as you can in whatever way you see fit, whether that means shoot on sight or lay low in the woods somewhere. Leave that choice to the individual and consequences may follow their actions. Quit trying to control everything.

I applaud the you for putting a lot of thought into changing the game, but I don't feel it fits the realm of DayZ.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Marshmallow

[curtis19 10]

Written out very nicely, but I think the humanity system should work as I posted in my post here....

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80532-humanity-and-groups/

Bascially humanity determines if you CAN start in a group when spawning, with some other things added into the idea.

But I can't get behind punishign a type of game play style, except cheating.

[6raham 90]

Why are people so bent on punishing players for playing as bandits?

My concept punishes nobody, it merely enables each player to think about their own choices and the repercussions of those choices. Want to be a bandit and murder a thousand survivors for the hell of it because that is your play style? You can. Nothing stopping you. But there is a cost that must be considered. In this case, to balance your Humanity, help out your squad mates a little between killing sprees. Likewise, want to be a hero and rescue a thousand survivors from a horde of Zeds? You can do that too, but there is also a cost to THAT, as it makes you more of a target to those who are infected.

It's all based around consequence. Life without rules is chaos, and a game without rules is as pointless as a game with too many...

edit - Also, consider for a moment the possibilities of being a Bandit Zed... Thermal vision to hunt with, stalking players through the streets of cherno with a pack of other infected as your allies, ripping the guts out of every survivor with your bare hands after you chase them down, shrugging off makarov bullets like bb pellets. That's punishment? sounds great to me :)

Edited September 4, 2012 by 6raham

[Reaven1911 48]

It Kinda ruins the whole bandit play style, because you will Totally be able to kill someone as a zombie, when they can backtrack faster then you.

I think Hero's should be able to run faster (which they already do) and bandits can get hit more, not a lot more, maybe ONE shot, but this is for pistols/low powered guns.

[curtis19 10]

I agree but I don't think those should be the consequences, i will admit though I would like ot play as a zombie.

[Bratalise 26]

I don't like it, for 2 reasons.

1. People don't turn into zombies from inhumanity they get bitten and turn.

2. This isn't what dayz is about its not a Player vs enemy game its a player vs player v enemy. Bandits are bandits not zombies

[captainwaffles 41]

My concept punishes nobody, it merely enables each player to think about their own choices and the repercussions of those choices. Want to be a bandit and murder a thousand survivors for the hell of it because that is your play style? You can. Nothing stopping you. But there is a cost that must be considered. In this case, to balance your Humanity, help out your squad mates a little between killing sprees. Likewise, want to be a hero and rescue a thousand survivors from a horde of Zeds? You can do that too, but there is also a cost to THAT, as it makes you more of a target to those who are infected.

It's all based around consequence. Life without rules is chaos, and a game without rules is as pointless as a game with too many...

edit - Also, consider for a moment the possibilities of being a Bandit Zed... Thermal vision to hunt with, stalking players through the streets of cherno with a pack of other infected as your allies, ripping the guts out of every survivor with your bare hands after you chase them down, shrugging off makarov bullets like bb pellets. That's punishment? sounds great to me :)

No it punishes bandits this doesnt just make people think about murdering it makes it completely terrible Rocket will never add this so get over it he said no one play style will get punished, but if you want it like this how about if you have 100% humanity you turn into a giant vagina and cant do anything but complain and cry

[6raham 90]

lol. Just lol.

[alsmir 255]

So much text just to explain a terrible idea...

[6raham 90]

So much text just to explain a terrible idea...

Please elaborate, I am interested in your reasoning.

For those who still don't get it, I am trying to re-embed the whole concept of zombie/infected further into what has effectively become just another FP deathmatch, in which so many people seem so threatened by any deviation, and react so defensively to protect their precious DM gameplay. Why can't people see past this bandit/hero deathmatch thing that the mod is currently? That is just a legacy of Arma II. This is a 1st person zombie/infected survival horror game in progress, the first of its kind. If Dean envisioned the game to be just Arma II with a few zombies dotted around for shits and giggles, he wouldn't be expanding into a standalone now, would he. BESIDES which, as I have explained several times already, my concept DOES NOT PUNISH ANYONE, so please grow some imagination and calm the fuck down.

I wrote this 'terrible idea' for the benefit of Rocket and the dev team. I'm sure the Zeds will be made more of a feature as the game progresses anyway, which I will be happy with - just thought i'd throw another idea into the mix, which is what was asked of us as testers. I'm not here to pander to the demands of anyone on this forum... and like it or not, neither are they. If the devs don't want to use it, that's their prerogitive, but it won't be because of some DM kiddies rage screaming, believe it.

[hatfieldcw 184]

No to bandits=zombies. They aren't the same just because they're both things that survivors try to avoid or kill. Banditry should be sustainable. I shouldn't have to go bloodbag someone every few minutes to retain my ability to fire a gun, ride a bicycle and walk without shambling. There's no reason why being a pragmatic apocalyptic survivor should turn me into a monster.

As for playing as a zombie for any reason, it doesn't feel right to me. These aren't Left4Dead zombies, they're mindless drones, wandering around looking for delicious warm brains to feast on. A zombie that can think and plan and coordinate is an aberration, and should not be tolerated.

Although it would be cool to gain the ability to walk through doors and barbed wire and hit people though walls.

And yeah, your system is definitely going to punish bandits. You say there's no punishment in it, but the other side of your mouth says that we have to "think more about the consequences," and "balance your Humanity level". If there's a consequence for a behavior that renders that behavior impossible, how is that not a punishment? The point of going full bandit is that you abandon your humanity level, you act based on what you need and what you fear and what you can safely take. There's no balance, there's no remorse or compunction, there's just survival at any cost, and that mindset, even if it's not yours, forms a key part of the zombified world we share here.

[00dlez 22]

my concept DOES NOT PUNISH ANYONE, so please grow some imagination and calm the fuck down.

Stop saying this, it is quite obviously not true.

If I want to play as a loner and kill everyone on sight as my survival strategy, your proposal clearly inhibits my ability to continue playing as a human. What you need to include is that everyone's humanity degrades (bandit and survivor alike) over time and a method of boosting the humanity back that players can do on their own. Zombie killing is not a good mechanic for boosting humanity. It attracts a lot of attention and incurs a lot of risk and if players are forced to upkeep their humanity, they should be able to chose when and how they go about it, not forced into an very dangerous activity.

Besides this, knowing the internet the way I do, there are a ton of kids who will try to become infected intentionally under this system. To do so, they must go on wild killing sprees... Probably specficially targeting unarmed new spawns to make it fast and easy. I think I've read a few complaint threads on that subject.

[6raham 90]

Thank you for a reasoned response.

I shouldn't have to go bloodbag someone every few minutes to retain my ability to fire a gun

Way over exaggerated (I have explained it in simple terms at the bottom). But with respect, why not? This is a game. Games have rules. A game without rules is either a sandbox or not a game. Consider Minecraft. It appears open and free of boundaries, yay you can build what you like, yet there are solid rules in place that must be followed: You have to mine to build. (unless you play the build only version, which isn't a game, it's a sandbox. Dayz is not a sandbox).

As for playing as a zombie for any reason, it doesn't feel right to me. These aren't Left4Dead zombies, they're mindless drones, wandering around looking for delicious warm brains to feast on.

Sorry but you're wrong, they are not zombies, they are infected people. They are not dead. And they run like fuck.

And yeah, your system is definitely going to punish bandits. You say there's no punishment in it, but the other side of your mouth says that we have to "think more about the consequences," and "balance your Humanity level". If there's a consequence for a behavior that renders that behavior impossible, how is that not a punishment?

Please explain where I suggested consequence makes a behaviour impossible, because I'm pretty sure you just suggested that with no help from me. Unless you mean my endgame suggestion? Yes, at 0% Humanity, it would be impossible to do anything but be a Zed (that's why it's called endgame) if that's what you mean.

But look, i'm not talking 'Kill a survivor, lose all your weapons' here, humanity would go up and down 1% at a time. If you still don't get it, let me explain the concept in simpler terms:

Max 100 points of Humanity

Min 0 points

Start with 50

Kill a survivor with 90 points, you lose 1 point

Kill a survivor with 51 points, you lose 1 point

Kill a survivor with 35 points, you gain 1 point

Kill a survivor with 48 points, you gain 1 point

See where this is going? At 100%, you could slaughter 50 survivors with humanity higher than your own before infection symptoms start to kick in at 50% and make life difficult. I am talking occasional twitches, cold sweats, coughing, occasional shakes, not full on shambling and drooling and dropping your sniper rifle as you seem to expect - that would come at a much much lower humanity level. And you would have to be pretty careless to let it drop that low to be honest. To get your humanity back up, kill players more infected than yourself, kill NPC Zeds (which would all effectively be at 0%), bandage / bloodbag your buddies, or give items away. There are more opportunities to raise Humanity than there are to lower it, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that becoming a Zed would be harder to do than staying Human. AND YOU COULD STILL BE A GODDAMN BANDIT!!

Stop saying this, it is quite obviously not true.

Erm... yes it is. If you don't get it by now then you have my sympathies.

Edited September 5, 2012 by 6raham

[hatfieldcw 184]

So you start at 50%, with "occasional twitches, cold sweats, coughing, occasional shakes". That's the first thing new players will see when they log in? They have to kill zombies, beat bandits, give items away and bloodbag each other 50 times to become fully human for the first time? That seems demoralizing. I can be a bandit and just make sure I kill one zombie for every survivor I kill to maintain 100% humanity? That seems ineffective. At 100% humanity, nobody has humanity higher than me, so the only way I can lose that first point is by killing another guy who has a perfect 100%? That would be a bloodbath, especially when I get above 55% or so and can farm humanity by massacring the newbies who are spawning at 50%. If I want to try playing as a zombie and get all the way down to 0%, I'll be unable to use medical supplies or give away items, so I'll have to stumble around punching other (non-hostile) zombies in the face to get back up to where I can swing an ax and regain my humanity? This idea is not good.

I'm thinking I don't like you. You seem unpleasant, egotistical and condescending. Starting replies with, "Sorry but you're wrong," and "Erm... yes it is." is not a good way to discuss an idea. You seem defensive and rude, which makes me think that you haven't thought your (terrible) idea through with an eye to improving the game, and are instead looking for a way to get your whine on while seeming smart. This idea is heavy-handed, poorly structured and superficial. It comes down to, "I want to make people play in a certain way, but I don't want to be met with the same valid responses that always shout down this discussion," and then you dress it up with clumsy butt-numbers and weak rhetoric in the hope that nobody will see through your sham. When you get called out on it, you reply with, "You're too dumb to understand why this isn't what you think it is," and a bunch of fuzzy mechanics that took less time to formulate than they took to type.

Humanity systems and related gameplay features are interesting to me, and I'd like to explore them, but this thread's probably not going to bear much fruit.

[Reaven1911 48]

Please elaborate, I am interested in your reasoning.

For those who still don't get it, I am trying to re-embed the whole concept of zombie/infected further into what has effectively become just another FP deathmatch, in which so many people seem so threatened by any deviation, and react so defensively to protect their precious DM gameplay. Why can't people see past this bandit/hero deathmatch thing that the mod is currently? That is just a legacy of Arma II. This is a 1st person zombie/infected survival horror game in progress, the first of its kind. If Dean envisioned the game to be just Arma II with a few zombies dotted around for shits and giggles, he wouldn't be expanding into a standalone now, would he. BESIDES which, as I have explained several times already, my concept DOES NOT PUNISH ANYONE, so please grow some imagination and calm the fuck down.

I wrote this 'terrible idea' for the benefit of Rocket and the dev team. I'm sure the Zeds will be made more of a feature as the game progresses anyway, which I will be happy with - just thought i'd throw another idea into the mix, which is what was asked of us as testers. I'm not here to pander to the demands of anyone on this forum... and like it or not, neither are they. If the devs don't want to use it, that's their prerogitive, but it won't be because of some DM kiddies rage screaming, believe it.

It punishes bandits, you work hard to get a gun, you get your first kill then BAM! your a zombie, everything about being a zombie was awful, nobody would want to be a zombie it would never balance out.

[agippo 37]

Good to see a suggestion that is well detailed and explained. However I don’t agree with the concept at all.

In essence you are suggesting that the consequence of losing Humanity is degrading into zombiism (is that a word?) and I dont like that as a concept.

I don’t like the idea that everyone is already infected and that the "virus" is exacerbated by aggression / violence. Personally I think that zombie bites should be infectious, (and curable) as this would add a brilliant mechanic to the game, especially when playing in a team. However I dont agree with the system you have suggested. I just cant bring myself to like the idea of a virus that’s triggered by being shit.

I don’t love that people that are brutal killers in this game, but no-one can deny they are a large part of what makes the game tense. The only reason bandits are currently out of control is the insane proliferation of what are supposed to be ultra rare weapons has meant everyone on a server is armed to the teeth. Once you have all the weapons you want, you think “now what?” . Clearly the “now what” for a lot of people seems to be “sit on a hill and shoot at noobs” (for me the answer ot the “now what?” question is trying to fix vehicles). I think once hacking is under control you will get less bored kids just killing people for fun as they will be too busy surviving and scrounging.

A lot of people have suggested what rewards / penalties could be instituted for various humanity scores, but I think any system that links to humanity needs to be very subtle and realistic. I dont think something overt like becoming a zed, or gaining some kind of clear advantage is a good idea.

[6raham 90]

It punishes bandits, you work hard to get a gun, you get your first kill then BAM! your a zombie

Are you actually reading what I write..?

Good to see a suggestion that is well detailed and explained. However I don’t agree with the concept at all.

In essence you are suggesting that the consequence of losing Humanity is degrading into zombiism (is that a word?) and I dont like that as a concept.

I don’t like the idea that everyone is already infected and that the "virus" is exacerbated by aggression / violence. Personally I think that zombie bites should be infectious, (and curable) as this would add a brilliant mechanic to the game, especially when playing in a team. However I dont agree with the system you have suggested. I just cant bring myself to like the idea of a virus that’s triggered by being shit.

I don’t love that people that are brutal killers in this game, but no-one can deny they are a large part of what makes the game tense. The only reason bandits are currently out of control is the insane proliferation of what are supposed to be ultra rare weapons has meant everyone on a server is armed to the teeth. Once you have all the weapons you want, you think “now what?” . Clearly the “now what” for a lot of people seems to be “sit on a hill and shoot at noobs” (for me the answer ot the “now what?” question is trying to fix vehicles). I think once hacking is under control you will get less bored kids just killing people for fun as they will be too busy surviving and scrounging.

A lot of people have suggested what rewards / penalties could be instituted for various humanity scores, but I think any system that links to humanity needs to be very subtle and realistic. I dont think something overt like becoming a zed, or gaining some kind of clear advantage is a good idea.

A very fair point of view, you have my beans.

I believe you are right, once duping and hacking are stopped, so too will the deathmatch mentality... I'm sure there are countless ways to do it but that would indeed be the simplest. Rocket will work it out i'm sure.

[Golgo82 28]

So you start at 50%, with "occasional twitches, cold sweats, coughing, occasional shakes". That's the first thing new players will see when they log in? They have to kill zombies, beat bandits, give items away and bloodbag each other 50 times to become fully human for the first time? That seems demoralizing. I can be a bandit and just make sure I kill one zombie for every survivor I kill to maintain 100% humanity? That seems ineffective. At 100% humanity, nobody has humanity higher than me, so the only way I can lose that first point is by killing another guy who has a perfect 100%? That would be a bloodbath, especially when I get above 55% or so and can farm humanity by massacring the newbies who are spawning at 50%. If I want to try playing as a zombie and get all the way down to 0%, I'll be unable to use medical supplies or give away items, so I'll have to stumble around punching other (non-hostile) zombies in the face to get back up to where I can swing an ax and regain my humanity? This idea is not good.

Exactly my thoughts.

[starwarsfan@gmx.de 450]

Dayz is not a sandbox

What game have you been playing? :huh:

Everywhere you go DayZ is desrcibed as a post apocalyptic survival sandbox.

[MGreenwald 49]

I'd like to see a benefit to one or the other... like hero's have quicker run speed and bandits have more steady aim, something small like this... Or heros gain more health from meat, bandits get more bullets per clip.

[00dlez 22]

What game have you been playing? :huh:

Everywhere you go DayZ is desrcibed as a post apocalyptic survival sandbox.

And the BF/CoD games are described as "the best games of the year", doesn't mean it's right... (but I do agree that DayZ is a sandbox... if it isn't, what is it?)

I'd like to see a benefit to one or the other... like hero's have quicker run speed and bandits have more steady aim, something small like this... Or heros gain more health from meat, bandits get more bullets per clip.

This is why I don't like seperating hero abilities for bandit abilities. What if I want to play as a bandit with faster speed or vice versa? IF (and a big if it seems) any perks or benefits are available, either side of the spectrum should have the opportunity to attain them, not shoe horning X ability with Y playstyle.

[Reaven1911 48]

Are you actually reading what I write..?

A very fair point of view, you have my beans.

I believe you are right, once duping and hacking are stopped, so too will the deathmatch mentality... I'm sure there are countless ways to do it but that would indeed be the simplest. Rocket will work it out i'm sure.

Yes I am

"Cons

-Can't use vehicles, weapons or tools."

[6raham 90]

Yes I am

"Cons

-Can't use vehicles, weapons or tools."

...only at 0% Humanity. It wouldn't be an instant change as you suggested.

So you start at 50%, with "occasional twitches, cold sweats, coughing, occasional shakes". That's the first thing new players will see when they log in? They have to kill zombies, beat bandits, give items away and bloodbag each other 50 times to become fully human for the first time? That seems demoralizing. I can be a bandit and just make sure I kill one zombie for every survivor I kill to maintain 100% humanity? That seems ineffective. At 100% humanity, nobody has humanity higher than me, so the only way I can lose that first point is by killing another guy who has a perfect 100%? That would be a bloodbath, especially when I get above 55% or so and can farm humanity by massacring the newbies who are spawning at 50%. If I want to try playing as a zombie and get all the way down to 0%, I'll be unable to use medical supplies or give away items, so I'll have to stumble around punching other (non-hostile) zombies in the face to get back up to where I can swing an ax and regain my humanity?

Almost. Only there would be no bandits / heros as I explained in my OP (that is just a playing choice), and at 0% you would not regain Humanity, whatever you did, it would be an endgame scenario. The point would be NOT to become fully infected.

As for demoralizing, you wash up on a post apocalyptic shore with nothing but death to look forward to. The whole premise of the game is demoralizing, so nothing new there, just more challenge.

Also, a 'kill 1 human / kill 1 zed' routine would be very difficult to maintain as you would only have visual / audio pointers as to who is infected and by how much, no big Humanity numbers in the UI to help you out. Shooting the right target and avoiding unwanted 'friendly fire' would rely on a great deal of observational skill, as it does in real life. Plenty of panic shooting and friendly fire scenarios (that happen a lot already) would negate any 1 point humanity grind, and hanging around the coast to farm humanity from new spawners would be difficult (if personal skins and clothing are implemented to differentiate everyone) and pointless, as all that would do is take you further down the scale towards being a Zed. Which clearly nobody would want to do as that would mean endgame. Yes there would be those who were curious about playing low down the scale or as a fully infected Zed, but on the coast they would just be another Zed of many, albeit with limited thermal vision and better AI for new spawners to try and survive.

I could see the real benefit of intentionally playing as a Zed being in playing as a group of Zeds, as a coordinated pack of hunters. This could prove to be a real threat to survival in cherno and electro, which in my opinion would not be a bad thing. Though again being a Zed would be down to personal taste and whether you would want to sacrifice the weaponry to do it. Like the kick you get from hunting with only an axe, the reward would be prestige, and I imagine a whole lot of fun too.

But hey, if it's not good to you, it's not good to you.

Edited September 7, 2012 by 6raham