Let me paint you a picture of DayZ game mechanics.

[SwitchBlayd 32]

What would you do in the board game once you've got max level on all powerups?

Stop playing the game?

Your analogy is flawed. You could stop playing the game, as clearly in your analogy you have "won" the game. Yet you decide to kill other players for fun. Imagine if monopoly never ended, it was persistent (like DayZ), and after one player owns everything, and everybody else is bankrupt. Would you

A.Stop playing

B.Harass the other players

[Jex =TE= (DayZ) 218]

Why does it matter how many hours it takes to get it? And it doesn't say anywhere that you can't share them does it dumbass?

Things often fly over your head do they? Why not make an argument and miss out the other half of the parameters that would make ur argument fallacious. Oh yeah because then you wouldn't have one...

[Jex =TE= (DayZ) 218]

Stop playing the game?

Your analogy is flawed. You could stop playing the game, as clearly in your analogy you have "won" the game. Yet you decide to kill other players for fun. Imagine if monopoly never ended, it was persistent (like DayZ), and after one player owns everything, and everybody else is bankrupt. Would you

A.Stop playing

B.Harass the other players

What he also missed was that given the option to help people out, which people could also choose to do rather than kill them, and the time and effort made to find said gear and vehicles etc, that it is easy to be a dick on this game - like the dicks that lay barbed wire across doors simply to grief other players - also this flawed analogy supports hackers since why would u be upset about people killing you for your gear on a board game to someone just grabbing it all by cheating and maybe even giving you some which makes you happy.

If this was a board game and u spent the last 10 hours grabbing gear and guns and some new player came in and just killed you - I think you'd punch them in the face and in fact if we were all in the same room on a lan and we knew who our killers were there would be a lot less killing or some peoples faces would be pushed through their monitor screens lol.

[SillySil 295]

Stop playing the game?

Your analogy is flawed. You could stop playing the game, as clearly in your analogy you have "won" the game. Yet you decide to kill other players for fun. Imagine if monopoly never ended, it was persistent (like DayZ), and after one player owns everything, and everybody else is bankrupt. Would you

A.Stop playing

B.Harass the other players

Why is it flawed it's exactly what happens in DayZ. Either people decide that it's boring after having the best gear or being able to get the best gear in short time or they stay and dick around if they like the game enough.

What if I want to keep playing the monopoly?

Things often fly over your head do they? Why not make an argument and miss out the other half of the parameters that would make ur argument fallacious. Oh yeah because then you wouldn't have one...

Nice way of ditching from answering. It doesn't matter how much time it takes. And I've never said you can't share the powerups. Same way DayZ does it.

What he also missed was that given the option to help people out, which people could also choose to do rather than kill them,

From OP "Some people would bunch up for sure" I guess you've been skipping class when they tried to teach you reading.

this flawed analogy supports hackers since why would u be upset about people killing you for your gear on a board game to someone just grabbing it all by cheating and maybe even giving you some which makes you happy.

How does that make sense? If someone would take the board and flip it for no reason there is a reason to be upset. He's ruining the game.

However loosing is within the game rules which you've agreed to follow when joining.

If this was a board game and u spent the last 10 hours grabbing gear and guns and some new player came in and just killed you - I think you'd punch them in the face and in fact if we were all in the same room on a lan and we knew who our killers were there would be a lot less killing or some peoples faces would be pushed through their monitor screens lol.

Seek help.

Edited September 11, 2012 by SillySil

[Jex =TE= (DayZ) 218]

No you're not getting it. Your argument is flawed from the get go so that makes your conclusions flawed as well. Comparing a board game to this game is like comparing apples and oranges and the whole outcome of player actions can be changed simply by changing the environment they play in, making your argument have more holes.

[Fabik 71]

The problem with DayZ is that military stuff takes so much place.

I mean, why so many different weapons ?

Is the game NRA sponsored ?

I really wish there were less weapons. Give me a hatchet, a Makarov and a Winchester and that's OK with me.

Reminds me of Maslow's Law: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

When all you have is a gun, everybody's a target.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Fabik

[SillySil 295]

No you're not getting it. Your argument is flawed from the get go so that makes your conclusions flawed as well. Comparing a board game to this game is like comparing apples and oranges and the whole outcome of player actions can be changed simply by changing the environment they play in, making your argument have more holes.

Where is it flawed? How are the mechanics from my made up game and DayZ different? They are exactly like that. I just took all the things from DayZ and gave them different name.

Why don't you actually make an argument instead of just repeating "you're wrong"?

Edited September 11, 2012 by SillySil

[kebman 213]

Refer to the board game.

This isn't a board game.

once you join a game, you agree to it's rules

What rules?

Except those rules that ban hacking, there are no rules, unless you take into account game mechanics and the laws of physics. That sound awfully like the real world, where morals matter.

I don't believe I'm hurting you in any shape or form therefore it's not immoral.

Oh, but you are. You're hurting people's feelings. :wub: Thus you're being immoral.

[SillySil 295]

This isn't a board game.

Are you unable to comprehend similes? Or do you play dumb on purpose? It makes a discussion with you very hard because I'll make a though-out argument and you'll just shrug and go "but it's not x"

What rules?

Except those rules that ban hacking, there are no rules, unless you take into account game mechanics and the laws of physics. That sound awfully like the real world, where morals matter.

That you need food and water. That you can die and loose everything. That there are weak enemies guarding things so you'll probably need a gun. That killing other players is allowed. That you can take everything a person had from their dead body. You want me to explain the game for you like you've never played it? Rules as in all game mechanics, what's allowed and what's not, what influences you and how, everything that's in the game.

Morality isn't in the game. Morality would stop me from doing bad things. There is not a single thing in the game that stops me from killing people. A towel around my head included.

Oh, but you are. You're hurting people's feelings. :wub: Thus you're being immoral.

So I guess everyone, everywhere who has ever won with someone in any game or sport is immoral because the guy who lost didn't like it.

Edited September 11, 2012 by SillySil

[Fabik 71]

DayZ is a survival game, yet it lacks a timer that would measure the lifespan of players.

From my understanding, the aim should be to last longer every time you play, but there is no ingame measurement of a player's longevity.

All we have is the number of kills (Zeds/Bandits/Murders). No wonder people tend to think a game where you need to kill to win.

Most guys probably think the one with the most kills is the best player... <_<

[FreshmeatDK 22]

I think this discussion has run foul of the original argument.

SillySil has stated an indisputable fact: A lot of people kill on sight. Enough people kill on sight to make teamwork between strangers a very rare thing. He also made a model of the game that nicely explains why it is so. It does not matter how people ought to behave in the current game, unless we have means of enforcing said behavior. It matters how they do behave, and it matters that if we change the underlying premises of the game, we will change the behavior of the average player.

As for SillySils model being wrong: It explains the data nicely, namely that people helping one another are far more rare than people killing each other. DayZ is not your average board game, granted, and we have a broad spectrum of options, but we still have a game where banditry is more profitable than non-banditry.

As for real world morals somehow influencing the game, a sad fact is that a lot of people use their anonymity to do things they otherwise would abstain from. We cannot change that. Without going into a metaethics discussion, our morality is to a high degree founded on the expected reactions from others (unless you want to drag God into the mess). As Jex stated, he would get angry with a player who griefed him if he met him. Here, that statement only serves to demonstrate the impotence of RL morals on the net. What we need is mechanisms based on self-interest that encourage cooperation in the short term instead of the long term, because long terms only exists on a few secluded servers and inside clans.*)

Can we agree that we would like to encourage people to cooperate, but leave the profits of banditry high enough so people know cooperation is risky, but rewarding? I think that discussion is far more fruitful than whether morals enter into a game.

*) On a side note, this is what makes clans so ridiculously powerful within the game. Cooperation on a long scale yields vehicles, choppers and loads of high grade weapons, and even two players traveling together is enough to deter most single players from attacking.

[Gavalin 90]

I agree with SillySil on the fact that the game is just easier for bandits as you have no moral obligation to do a damn thing but put a bullet in a someone's dome piece and pook, profit. That was his original argument, that and finding the statements that any play style is -immoral-.

I don't believe any play style is immoral, bandits would happen, they happen with out zombies and the end of the world.

He was trying to get people to recognize that it needs to be equally (Profitable and skill wise) to be a bandit or hero. As he himself is only a bandit KOS person because its simply easier.

Barring getting a few head doc's to come up with a complied list of the random things that happens to a person's psych when they mass murder or continuely risk themselves to save others (Say you see a child with zombies chasing it, as a hero that would cause a very similar mental affect as repeat murders from a bandit) if you didn't save it. At least I feel bad, very, if I try to save someone and can't. The risk that comes from me being in a ghillie, military rifle, hanging around the north parts, and still trying to cover people puts me at a danger for -nothing-. Well I -do- gain the small benefit that someone -might MIGHT- not shoot me but I get nothing for this but lose of my precious ammo. Causing me to hunt guns more because I go through them like crazy, I think I've used every weapon now...something crazy like that. Minus the snipers. Never used those.

I don't wish to bash either side but to me it seems that the point of both conversations are missed.

On a side note, since its more of a simulator and not a game the unbalance issues will be there, the simulator cant' take into account emotions as mentioned repeatedly. Things to point out as well, the loneliness factor. When you're don't shooting people on sight in DayZ you log off visit family or friends etc etc, so that is lost with most the rest of the emotions attached to something like this.

So a need for -something-, anything to show this loss of immersion is what SillySil was getting at (Well to me they are.)

Another reason to -try to balance- the mechanic is good people will be good, bad people be bad (Not calling bandits bad just a word to symbolize it) neutral people will go for easy, fast.

Rephrase of that statement would be Heroes will be heroes because they want to, bandits will be bandits because they want to. Those who are on the fence either way, become bandits out of the increase gain of profit from doing so. Bandits are safer, simply because they deal with no one or no one outside their friends. They survive longer and get supplies faster.

I believe this was one of the major points trying to be discussed and I tried to simplify it :)

Edited September 12, 2012 by Gavalin

[SillySil 295]

I agree with SillySil on the fact that the game is just easier for bandits as you have no moral obligation to do a damn thing but put a bullet in a someone's dome piece and pook, profit. That was his original argument, that and finding the statements that any play style is -immoral-.

I don't believe any play style is immoral, bandits would happen, they happen with out zombies and the end of the world.

He was trying to get people to recognize that it needs to be equally (Profitable and skill wise) to be a bandit or hero. As he himself is only a bandit KOS person because its simply easier.

Another reason to -try to balance- the mechanic is good people will be good, bad people be bad (Not calling bandits bad just a word to symbolize it) neutral people will go for easy, fast.

Rephrase of that statement would be Heroes will be heroes because they want to, bandits will be bandits because they want to. Those who are on the fence either way, become bandits out of the increase gain of profit from doing so. Bandits are safer, simply because they deal with no one or no one outside their friends. They survive longer and get supplies faster.

This is the essence of what I'm getting at. Thank you so much for making that post. I was starting to think that it's something wrong with me but since you understood exactly what I've meant I'll assume that I've expressed myself properly.

[ZomboWTF 527]

nice speech, but in a board game you have contact with the players on the table, you see their figures and what they have, people see when you are about to attack and can prepare, because every player is omniscient in your example

this also means there cant be any circumstances of "randomn death" like in DayZ, running around for 2 hours... bullet to the head, or a .50 cal, you guys know what i'm talking about, it plain and simple sucks, just someone pushing your restart button

also, being a board game, i'd doubt that it would take one hour of running, two hours of looting and luck to get some gear you actually are able to fight back at all with

I'm not saying pvp is bad, it's what makes DayZ as great as it is and it's awesome, but your example is not at all applicable

[Gavalin 90]

Yea the only things he was really trying to convey with the board game metaphor was really there is no difference between killing someone's chess piece and killing a player in DayZ, on a moral stand point. The object of the game is to survive, thus taking a player out in DayZ for food or ammo is no different then taking a game board piece out, hopping a checker, on a moral level.

As per example from Zombo, getting 50'd from so far out you can't hear it brings the same emotional attachment or feeling as side swiping someone's expose queen with a bishop from across the chest board.

I am personally aware that for the player that gets shot it sucks, much like a 2 hour chess game then run into a check mate. Same feeling.

I'm pretty sure the idea is reguardless how you play, to find the bandit way immoral, he believes that to be insane for people to feel its immoral to shoot another player. As it is easier to explain his thoughts with a board game (As even my statement above ^ is confusing).

I shall be corrected if I am wrong though.

[SillySil 295]

Yea the only things he was really trying to convey with the board game metaphor was really there is no difference between killing someone's chess piece and killing a player in DayZ, on a moral stand point. The object of the game is to survive, thus taking a player out in DayZ for food or ammo is no different then taking a game board piece out, hopping a checker, on a moral level.

That's the thing. When I'm playing DayZ I consider it a game. I have my own virtual pawn and I can beat other player's virtual pawns. Nothing immoral about it for me in real life.

I could be roleplaying and considering it immoral, but I'd be only playing a role.