Friendly survivor system (hard-coded 'friendliness')

[Blaise 1]

I think adding some meta elements to establish groups is a good thing. In DayZ / Arma II, you're limited to a game, represented by an avatar that is very limited in what it can do and express.

For example: you cannot easily identify a friend, because everyone wears the same clothes. Also you cannot easily recognize a face because you have to stand in front of them, pointing your gun at his face as you look. You cannot shake hands with another person, looking the other person in the eyes to see if it's honest.

You can salute, sit and lower your gun, but nobody knows this exists or what button to press.

So you need some kind of meta element to replace physical behavior that people use IRL to recognize people and to perform acts that represent trust.

Joining a group by adding your name to a team list would be a good way to do this (does Arma II have any squad forming?). You should be able to see player names within ~ 200 meters for the people in your team. Backstabbing team mates should be allowed (trololol), but at least you have a chance to know who did it so it can be dealt with.

This will also aid bandits forming groups, but so be it. I think that's realistic.

[drayson 158]

Nope don't like it. I've played to many games with a consensual pvp system and it is always annoying and stupid. If you don't want to get shot and like working together go play L4D.

[dissaifer 3]

Sabata, trust me I'm not over looking the online mentality. The intent of my suggestion (it's the one called Survival - Let's turn this B$%^h up to 11) is that a single player will have an extremely rough time playing alone. It won't be impossible, just very difficult.

I don't expect them to blindly run up to another player and trade. What I do expect is that the possibility of killing or trading be equal.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

Nope don't like it. I've played to many games with a consensual pvp system and it is always annoying and stupid. If you don't want to get shot and like working together go play L4D.

L4D allows FF, heh. At least you should welcome a suggestion that doesn't penalize directly any way of playing.

[Wired 1]

People just argued for an artificial system which keeps you on the map and not going beyond it.

consistency would be nice.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

Sabata' date=' trust me I'm not over looking the online mentality. The intent of my suggestion (it's the one called Survival - Let's turn this B$%^h up to 11) is that a single player will have an extremely rough time playing alone. It won't be impossible, just very difficult.

I don't expect them to blindly run up to another player and trade. What I do expect is that the possibility of killing or trading be equal.

[/quote']

Well, and don't you think that once any killing possibility exist, it will grow over the time (the phenomenon I call KoS loop). A player gets killed once, ok no problem. Twice, oh well. Sooner or later becomes another P'K because trust no one. Yeah, you could add there many subtle mechanism to decrease the chances, however those mechanism may backfire one way or another. In the end, as I say, let everyone play as they want, and give them the tools to do so. This is what this proposal is in the end.

[drayson 158]

L4D allows FF, heh. At least you should welcome a suggestion that doesn't penalize directly any way of playing.

This would penalize anyone who wants to actually hunt down other players for supplies. If I am bad at scavenging but good at killing, that is how I would survive. If I run into groups of people, take the time to get the gear to kill them, stalk them, then get in position to shoot them only to find out I can't shoot them at all cause they want easy mode it is pretty game ruining. There are few enough people on the servers as is to break them into categories of people who can and can't be shot.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

This would penalize anyone who wants to actually hunt down other players for supplies. If I am bad at scavenging but good at killing' date=' that is how I would survive. If I run into groups of people, take the time to get the gear to kill them, stalk them, then get in position to shoot them only to find out I can't shoot them at all cause they want easy mode it is pretty game ruining. There are few enough people on the servers as is to break them into categories of people who can and can't be shot.

[/quote']

Am I confused or do you think this system allows some players to be completely invulnerable? A default FF status player still could kill anyone as is now. So that's why I say it doesn't penalize directly such role. You may face more opposition depending the situation, a group is harder to assault for a lone player.

This allows interesting variants though, you may benefice from teamplay to gather gear and later play as stalker.

[deepfried 95]

How can a bandit backstab someone' date=' if he is forced to use this "friend"-system?

Really, I also would like to see less PvP, but I would really, really hate this system.

[/quote']

Thats the whole point, its bandits pretending to be friendly then backstabbing people that is making coop impossible and KoS the only viable tactic.

I can understand why bandits may not like this as they may end up getting a taste of their own medicine... well I say suck it up like a man and accept the challenge.

We need something, the game cant really go on as it is as it is wasting lots of potential and has mostly turned into just a large deathmatch arena.

I can understand reluctance to make a fundamental mechanical change like this but bear in mind this is still alpha, the perfect time to give stuff like this a go and see if it works or not, if it doesn't work then ditch it... no harm done.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

I can understand reluctance to make a fundamental mechanical change like this but bear in mind this is still alpha, the perfect time to give stuff like this a go and see if it works or not, if it doesn't work then ditch it... no harm done.

The fact that this idea was even discussed by rocket and his buddies amazes me. I don't expect dayZ to go into such deep transformation even if it's an alpha, let's face it.

However, I really wish someone could take something useful from here. A system that allows most roles and doesn't penalize players in the usual ways should be the way to go. Being so unrealistic kills it though. We just shouldn't be afraid of game rules, that's my stance.

[zeeb 6]

Im signing this, this was a real nice idea. Keep it up man!

adding it to my list of favorite suggestions.

[mikyjax 3]

Well honesty this mechanic is more elegant than the crowd/flies/bandit skin

And really permits teamplay. I like it.

But before the friendly fire is working it should be checked by both part. "X sent you a request"

I don't see it by clicking on the protagonist since it would requier to aim him wich is the opposite of a friendly move. I would go for a menu appearing with all players name where you choose one to add friend. (jeez this game is becoming facebook)

Still, an important thing is that this friendly relation can only last about 5 minuts but we don't know exactly when it stops. There is no notification of the "friendly fire off" and you can call it only once by protagonist. So you are "safe" from this guy for 5 minuts, after, all remain possible

When you shoot on someone with the friendly fire on, the gun will shoot but won't make dammage. 2 seconds after, the friendly fire will break. (with this time a notification)

You can wait something like a lil more than 5 minutes to be sure the friendly fire is not engaged anymore. So betray remains possible.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

Well honesty this mechanic is more elegant than the crowd/flies/bandit skin

And really permits teamplay. I like it.

But before the friendly fire is working it should be checked by both part. "X sent you a request"

I don't see it by clicking on the protagonist since it would requier to aim him wich is the opposite of a friendly move. I would go for a menu appearing with all players name where you choose one to add friend. (jeez this game is becoming facebook)

Still' date=' an important thing is that this friendly relation can only last about 5 minuts but we don't know exactly when it stops. There is no notification of the "friendly fire off" and you can call it only once by protagonist. So you are "safe" from this guy for 5 minuts, after, all remain possible

When you shoot on someone with the friendly fire on, the gun will shoot but won't make dammage. 2 seconds after, the friendly fire will break. (with this time a notification)

You can wait something like a lil more than 5 minutes to be sure the friendly fire is not engaged anymore. So betray remains possible.

[/quote']

Making it something consensual makes sense, in the end is some sort of agreement between both players. However, it also becomes a rather tedious and micromanagement dependent. It would be ok for small groups, my idea was more general though.

Imagine a whole town where only FF disabled players are allowed. It's far more complicated to implement if you don't do it very simple. This idea is more like daydreaming, heheh. If just small groups of strangers could trust each other, that would be enough for certain interactions.

[mikyjax 3]

yes that s what I meant, that should work like this:

Lets say you can only "friendly" a guy who is in your sight. You didn't shoot, you choose to ask him to be your temporary friend.

The guy receive a notification. "someone had you in sight and request friendship" you chose to accept or deny. If you accept both player have a notification " You are friendly with x"

This will only disable fire for 3 to 10, it s random and you don't know when it s off.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

I think the friendship deal should end automatically when players are far from each other X distance. A random timer seems to me like an hyper-artificial way to create unnecessary tension/drama.

[mikyjax 3]

Without a timer it s too easy to thrust and there is no way to backstab. wich is not good for the mod.

I don't love this mechanic, it s just better than skin or crowd. But without timer honnestly it s not interresting. The thrust must be hard to get and risky. There is no risk in your mechanic.

It should reduce the shot on sight, not the betraying.

[Kashimus (DayZ) 0]

i would mix this frinedship thing with few things if you aim your cursor on that person itt will show his name to help indetify your "buddy" like in early dayz version (survivor)Dave , for an unknown/not friendly man itwill show only the 8survivor)unknown/not friendly , and there should be a few leveles of friendship/trust for example the first is the name tag, second is name tag over his/her character in close range, third you could check his /her condition (food,thirst,blood level like the pulse, and a text should say xy is not thirsty, xyz is very thirsty...etc ) fourth pointing your cursor on him/her it should show the status of the character like it show's now 30m(survivor)Jane, under it the status icons (food,thirst,blood level,temperatur) fifth you could check his/her debug monitor for blood level,like the indicator pointing your cursor on him/her six you could see her/him like a squad mate in the green square for 50 meter range, or for the direct communication range (like in the game ), for this both players have to set each other to the same trust level, for the higher trust level there would be conditions, you have to play with him/her 4 hours in reallife time, or help him bandage,give him blood,play in cooperation, then you could add him/her to your buddy list and level it up between each other,both players have to confirm the changes on levelling up/lowering the status,

the levels may vary and the conditions

i just wanna know what do you think about it , this will not block the friendly fire, back stabbing thing, it will help friendly players indetify "buddys",

edit1:sorry english is not my native language

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

Without a timer it s too easy to thrust and there is no way to backstab. wich is not good for the mod.

I don't love this mechanic' date=' it s just better than skin or crowd. But without timer honnestly it s not interresting. The thrust must be hard to get and risky. There is no risk in your mechanic.

It should reduce the shot on sight, not the betraying.

[/quote']

Ok, you want drama and tension :) What about this: any partner may break the deal at any time. When this happens, this player can't damage any previous partner for 30-60 seconds, yet his invulnerability is lost automatically. What does it mean: the betrayer has to pay a price.

Ideally, this means that one of your partners simply may vanish (involves some interesting gameplay, how, when, etc) and then breaks the deal and game notifies it to you. Options then are 2: try to hunt the betrayer or just run away...

BTW, default termination still would be distance.

Honestly, I want a solid deal that forces trust because I foresee gameplay features that really requires this. The backstabbing games are fun too, but very limited in the grand scheme of things. Maybe there could be a compromise so when the deal is made, its termination method can be set somehow.

[Mr_John_Doe 0]

Maybe if Rocket implemented a randomly possible "dying breath" period where a murdered person get 2-3 seconds to retaliate on the murderer. That will make it more risky to kill someone at least at close range. Possibly... well, I don't know. :)

Another suggestion is more of a psychology thing that may suit Rockets vision better. Make players with high Murder count hear fake footsteps, breathing, heart beats like their mind is playing tricks on them for doing such despicable acts. Maybe also give a murderer an untimely nervous shake when aiming at people?

And you can easily build on that idea and add an invisible sanity-meter which gives graver side effect for every murder you commit. Add pills to lessen those effects and side effects to the pills, add vodka with their calming effect and obvious immediate drawbacks. Withdrawal? Smoking for calming nerves too, with drawback of beeing visible at night, involutary coughing etc.

Maybe these ideas are a bit of topic, but it is all to disuade people from going on murdering rampages without any apparent drawbacks. And it adds a layer of realism. Who doesn't like realism, eh? ;)

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

Maybe if Rocket implemented a randomly possible "dying breath" period where a murdered person get 2-3 seconds to retaliate on the murderer. That will make it more risky to kill someone at least at close range. Possibly... well' date=' I don't know. :)

Another suggestion is more of a psychology thing that may suit Rockets vision better. Make players with high Murder count hear fake footsteps, breathing, heart beats like their mind is playing tricks on them for doing such despicable acts. Maybe also give a murderer an untimely nervous shake when aiming at people?

And you can easily build on that idea and add an invisible sanity-meter which gives graver side effect for every murder you commit. Add pills to lessen those effects and side effects to the pills, add vodka with their calming effect and obvious immediate drawbacks. Withdrawal? Smoking for calming nerves too, with drawback of beeing visible at night, involutary coughing etc.

Maybe these ideas are a bit of topic, but it is all to disuade people from going on murdering rampages without any apparent drawbacks. And it adds a layer of realism. Who doesn't like realism, eh? ;)

[/quote']

There are plenty of threads to talk about some of those suggestion, I also tried to state why this selective FF could be relevant for FF: no other suggestion will make possible 2 strangers really trust each other.

You may decrease the killing intentions somehow, however there's only needed a few griefers (meaning people who don't want to survive) to seed mistrust around the servers and go back to KoS quick and fast.

And of course some of those 'realistic' suggestions are negative for the game. Some of them are directly punishing P'K, which is basically like negating dayZ to exist. I would like to use selective FF to accomplish 2 opposite goals at same time: maintain as much killing freedom as possible and also create a mechanism to enforce trust among those strangers that want to play a more cooperative gameplay.

[bowcaster 0]

The idea has some merit' date=' but i feel it will detract from the uncertanty and paranoia that is the fun part of interact with strangers in DayZ - it might also lead to "friendly" players simply moeing down anyone who hasn't designated themselves as friendly. Actually the more I think about it the less I like the idea...

[/quote']

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree, the uncertainty of weather or not you can trust somebody it one of the best parts of this game. I definitely don't want a system where you can completely trust people. Makes the game boring and the same as any other game out there. Uncertainty, paranoia and how humans react to it is extremely important in this game.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

Makes the game boring and the same as any other game out there.

I thought any other game there was about shoot first, ask later :p

No well, this discussion is over since many persons want to stick to certain realistic aspects (and ignore many others, of course). It's true that complete strangers shouldn't trust each other, however this is a game a that's a huge obstacle to create complex interactions.

There could be done some changes into the mechanic to create mistrust and make it less black and white. Doesn't matter in the end, stop beating the dead horse heh.

[bowcaster 0]

Makes the game boring and the same as any other game out there.

I thought any other game there was about shoot first' date=' ask later :p

No well, this discussion is over since many persons want to stick to certain realistic aspects (and ignore many others, of course). It's true that complete strangers shouldn't trust each other, however this is a game a that's a huge obstacle to create complex interactions.

There could be done some changes into the mechanic to create mistrust and make it less black and white. Doesn't matter in the end, stop beating the dead horse heh.

[/quote']

By any other game, I meant Co-op games or MMOs where they have special mechanics to link up together or whatever. Day Z is supposed to be a zom simulator. It is supposed to feel natural and friendly fire mechanics would break the immersion.

And not being sure if you can trust someone does lead to complex interactions, just in a different way from other co-op games.

Same as why I don't like the survivor/bandit mechanic, its artificial. Morality should be real, not artificial. Someone else has a thread about getting rid of the humanity system that you could read.

[Sabata (DayZ) 1]

By any other game, I meant Co-op games or MMOs where they have special mechanics to link up together or whatever. Day Z is supposed to be a zom simulator. It is supposed to feel natural and friendly fire mechanics would break the immersion.

Yeah, a simulator of a completely imaginary situation. Anyway, isn't like taking away FF would be my first choice, isn't obviously, but I didn't come across any other solution that seeks same goals either.

[hoik 415]

My first post on this subject was one of my first post on this forum - so I really didn't realise how "on the pulse" many of your statement were.

Please' date=' go for the root of this problem. Some people will want to kill anything on sight, let them do it, don't try to negotiate some sort of deal like 'kill a bit less, don't fuck the game or I'll fuck you too'. Other people will want to survive and cooperate, offer them a solid game mechanism that makes possible complete trust in other random survivors.

[/quote']

Yes - everything but the COMPLETE trust - as there is no such thing! The mechanic should let players accuratly determine trust and then depending on their conclusions, act on it. This preserves all the tention of initial contact.

but please forget about the freaking 'realism' for a second. Just add selective friendly fire. Once a player sets its status to "friendly"' date=' no damage to other friendly players will be possible.

Yes, it's completely insane, I know, as much as people spawning like magic in a world inside a computer. Wow, a revelation for all the jerks that won't get this. You can't pretend a game world replicates a real like situation perfectly, you have to do meta stuff like this or games will derail as much as this one is doing right now.

[/quote']

I completely understand your frustration as it has VERY quickly become one of mine. I love that your trying to tackle these core issues (even if I don't 100% agree on your method) - Just wanted you to know I understand how you feel!

Ive tried resolving this core problem - (which is how to make a system that neither adds or subtracts from ANY play style simply promotes thought) - but from the other direction, with no hard rules to guide players. Theres a link on the first or second page of this thread.

The funniest thing is when I have tryed floating this idea in other threads the general feeling was that people didn't trust others to make decisions beyond the obvious without "hard" rules, while when suggestions like yours (aimed at resolving the same general question) proposing hard rules get the general cry "its unrealistic"...sigh