A new 'status' to encourage cooperation

[Budiak 1]

I'm sorry, I found that quite difficult to understand. Are you saying that this mechanic would make lone wolves unable to manipulate the situation to their advantage? Everybody does that. Lone wolves, full squads, and two-man teams alike. That is what all playstyles have in common. It doesn't change the fact that this mechanic would specifically punish one of those styles.

[Blaaaaaaag 75]

good idea' date=' but it affects a lonewolfs gamestyle alot so [b']maybe adding some antidepressants is the key.

Woah, woah. You actually might be onto something here... could we get some feedback from lonewolf players?

I'm not wanting to make things easier or force playstyles, but adding some psychological tension would be awesome. Something related to being around people, that could be medicated if you want to lonewolf. Thoughts?

I'm disagreeing on this one, on the sole basis that I'm one of those rare humans whose anxiety level rises around other people, and need extensive solo time (usually spent gaming or watching movies) to decompress after a day of human interaction. It irks me because it would force me to adopt and adapt to a psychological requirement that's alien to me.

If anything, Budiak's suggestion might work, but I think we should just leave this notion alone entirely.

[Budiak 1]

Thank you.

My whole proposal was that the human is a creature of habit, and most of all, is an adaptive organism. Play a certain way and that is what you will be. It would not impose anything on the player, rather, the game is responding to the player's personality.

It could also work if it, as well as the rest of the suggestions, were not implemented at all.

[hoik 415]

Great thread with a heap of interesting ideas that I both agree and disagree with. Im totally on board with Budiak, the more dynamic the system the more intresting it will be.

But the question I ask myself (in regards to a stress meter) is what is the actual purpose of stress/insanity in real life - its a coping mechanism right? So by this logic even if you are going crazy by yourself out in the wilderness, it is also helping you survive (to a certain extent anyway, running around thinking your the son of god couldn't help with your prospects...or could it?). And "Crazy" behaviour is so disturbing to others because it is a clear indicator of how far behind a person has left the social norms.

So I suggest high stress/low sanity would have a larger adverse psychological effect on those around you than it would on you yourself - crazy people don't realise their crazy, infact it is a benifit to them.

[stryker211 10]

Why would I get depressed by myself all alone in the zombie wasteland with tons of idiots(trolls, people with entitlement issues, thugs) to kill? Hell it would be my lifes goal to rid the world of as many of these idiots as possible.

I would feel bad for killing all the people merely trying to survive and do good but such is life. Only crazy people need anti-depressants :D

If I happen across someone thats worthy of living and shares my goals, fantastic hop aboard or move on your merry way. I don't need you lol.

[Sakinoko 0]

First I will say I was on-board with a version of the original idea, but Budiak definitely changed my mind on the whole concept and brought up an excellent suggestion as a way of dealing with the system. Too complex and probably not possible are words that come to my mind, but its still a way better idea to have a more dynamic system as described.

(Below belongs in psychology forums, but I felt like writing it here anyway)

Secondly -- to all you loners, emo kids, and anti-social folks who say they would thrive (without a doubt) in a post-apocalyptic world, devoid of all your current frivolities and wondrous technologies, give it a rest. I love being away from people and being alone just as much as the next anti-social guy, but in all honesty if a devastating plague, war, etc hit and all I knew was destroyed, all my friends/family gone, all my video games, tv shows, cell phone, air conditioning was all gone even I'd crack a little and need to find others that survived like I did. This world would make you harder and you'd lose a lot of that old humanity, but it wouldn't happen on day 1 or day 365, maybe after 5 years of wandering the wastelands, avoiding zombies, killer bandits, and killing a few people yourself (with a rusty knife watching their life seep from their eyes) then you can talk about how well you'd handle a lone wolf situation.

Someone made mention of life in places like Africa, now those people would be more suited to an apocalypse. They are accustomed to death, destruction, and loss, but they didn't get that way overnight, they got that way being in that situation for hundreds (hell thousands) of years. So for those of you fooling yourselves into thinking you're super soldier Rambo and a post-apocalyptic world would be right at home for you, get back on your interwebs, read and write on the forums how cool you are, and think about a child in Africa or some other terrible place in the world. /rant

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Its fine to tell people that their opinion is wrong. But as none of us can tell how we would react you cant really use a counter argument saying we would def crack under those strains.

As I mentioned African refugees show how resilient people can be. And your sweeping judgements about how they got so tough don't really stand up to scrutiny either. You don't have to look far to find evidence of people from the western world finding themselves in similar harsh situations and the wide variety of reactions to said circumstances to quickly see that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to this stuff.

I'm not saying I'm john Rambo or a super soldier i'm saying don't tell me what I am. I shit myself playing this game and I love that.

You can rant all you want but your argument is just as flimsy as the ones you are decrying.

[Sakinoko 0]

I wont comment again on this as it is not within the spirit of the post, but I felt this needed some clarification. If you want to discuss it further make a post of your own (and point me to it) or PM me and we can go at it there. I love a good debate, I hate hijacking someone else's thread.

Its fine to tell people that their opinion is wrong. But as none of us can tell how we would react you cant really use a counter argument saying we would def crack under those strains.

I assure you there is no mention in my arguments or rant of how you or others would react to any particular situation. I merely stated how I would crack regardless of my current willingness to be alone.

As I mentioned African refugees show how resilient people can be. And your sweeping judgements about how they got so tough don't really stand up to scrutiny either. You don't have to look far to find evidence of people from the western world finding themselves in similar harsh situations and the wide variety of reactions to said circumstances to quickly see that there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to this stuff.

My mention of your statement about the African refugees was not as sweeping or as judgmental as I think you have taken it. I said that they are more accustomed to things akin a post-apocalyptic world because of their hardship' date=' which would better equip them for such events. I never mentioned that they would absolutely be able to handle any situation better than anyone from the western world, or that they would all handle it equally.

I'm not saying I'm john Rambo or a super soldier i'm saying don't tell me what I am. I shit myself playing this game and I love that.

I never told you (or anyone else for that matter) who you are or what you're capable of, I only said don't fool yourself into believing you know how you'd handle an apocalypse, until one has happened.

You can rant all you want but your argument is just as flimsy as the ones you are decrying.

As you say this was a rant, I made no argument's here so I dunno what argument you took from it. My initial post was only to say I love the new alteration Budiak made, the rest was just a rant about those on these forums who say "I could run around and kill people all day if this really happened, and I wouldn't feel two ways about it!" -- I say, once you've done it, then tell me how well you could do it, until then stop fooling yourselves.

Hope this clears up my previous post a little and now, ON WITH THE MECHANICS DEBATE!

[suiside 20]

give players an option to show they do not kill survivors, that is all you need,

have you killed you can not show or use that option.

in another thread i wrote about using armbands you can option on or off at spawn or as long as you have not killed, once you made a kill self defense or not that option is gone and no armband for you, the good guys change rather than the bad guys and it is an option,

lonewolfs should not be penalized because they fear the people or group mentality,

maybe add color to the armband to show what type you are generally speaking, green blue red, for each type of gamer,

green for coop in general, blue for a team, red for a lone wolf, black for a killer who chose the armband at first.

none for those who opt out of the armband system ?

just an example of armbands

with binos or just when meeting you can see what kind of player some one is,

this way with direct comms you can call upon some one, and have better idea of what you are encountering,

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

I don't want to derail this thread with debating about someone's crap arguments but your talking out of your arse Sakinoto. You had a rant good on you , but don't try and back peddle on it when you get brought up about the stuff you saying.

You clearly made a bunch of sweeping generalisations about various issues without any evidence.. Which African tribes are you talking about , where have you got your 100 / 1000 years figure from? Are you suggesting 100 years is long enough for mental survival traits to be evolved out of a human gene pool ? Or are you trying to make a nature vs nurture debate? That in some way just because someone has lived a life of luxury it makes them less mentally strong ? My point is that when the cards are down people are amazingly tough and there is ample evidence to support this throughout history, involving people from societies and all walks of life.

There are also plenty of people who get depression and other mental illnesses BECAUSE of society. People who live in the lap of luxury with everything you we all (are supposed to) want , money, power, friends etc who end up in rehab or institutions. Society itself breaks some people. You can garuntee there is a percentage of people that the more extreme life turned out the more they would thrive.

So in closing if we cant predict how people will react (and I think we can agree on that) , therefore you cant put in a system that tells you how you are reacting without breaking peoples immersion.

(the current system involves food, blood, water, temperature. these are universal and physical and effect everyone more or less the same way. You could also add fatigue in the same way)

[hoik 415]

give players an option to show they do not kill survivors' date=' that is all you need,

have you killed you can not show or use that option.

in another thread i wrote about using armbands you can option on or off at spawn or as long as you have not killed, once you made a kill self defense or not that option is gone and no armband for you, the good guys change rather than the bad guys and it is an option,

lonewolfs should not be penalized because they fear the people or group mentality,

maybe add color to the armband to show what type you are generally speaking, green blue red, for each type of gamer,

green for coop in general, blue for a team, red for a lone wolf, black for a killer who chose the armband at first.

none for those who opt out of the armband system ?

just an example of armbands

with binos or just when meeting you can see what kind of player some one is,

this way with direct comms you can call upon some one, and have better idea of what you are encountering,

[/quote']

This is great solution (IMHO) who's viability could so easily be tested - It is totally authentic in terms of story and only assumes that there is a general consences on what armbands mean.

__________________

EDIT: ok I do see one problem - people lie, and if you took armbands as gospel in a situation like this you would probably deserve a bullet...the question then is would people be willing to sacrafice "realism" for a way to guage a persons general persona at a glance?

OK RE-EDIT: I really should think things through - but it is getting late in my part of the world. Armbands guarentee NOTHING but up till that point the player hasn't commited a murder - a bandit could still use this to gain trust and then rob someone with out murder - damn, I like this idea more and more.

[suiside 20]

the idea is partially from terminator salvation and partially because we want everything boxed and color coded.

it still does not give away the serial killer and psychomaniacs but it does give players an option to communicate without typing or voip which is the general principal needed to identification.

[hoik 415]

Funny - I posted at the very start of this thread and a bit inbetween, then by round about ways made it back here via Sui without realising it - By the content of these last couple posts I had no idea it was the same one.

I mean, african tribes...WTF?

[oktyabr 53]

TL;DR version first: Isolating "depression" and medications for it have no context in a game like DayZ. Add nothing that directly and *artificially* impacts one play style over another.

DayZ, as it stands, is GREAT at making the player feel all sorts of tensions and anxiety as it is, and this is arguably the biggest attraction of DayZ... how playing it can make YOU feel. The game mechanics that increase these feelings for the player, behind the monitor and the keyboard, are what should be emphasized, not some artificial means of trying to impose such things on the "character" the player is playing.

In the context of DayZ the "survivor" character, likely *all* of them, are already a bunch of seriously fucked up basket cases. Your whole world has been turned completely upside down. Everything that was normal about your day to day life has ceased to exist. Most of your friends, family, coworkers and casual acquaintances are all dead, dying, or lost to the infection that dooms us all...

You watched your next door neighbor get torn to pieces by the infected early on and the friendly old lady you knew from the market blow the head off of her next door neighbor to protect a single can of beans. The guy that used to pump your gas now eats brains for a living and his own coworkers were some of the first he ate.

You stink of death and decay, your clothes are filthy and swarming with fleas and you don't remember what a hot bath with soap feels like. You are severely malnourished even though you've learned to eat and drink things that before the apocalypse would have made you puke. You literally don't remember the last time you slept more than a few minutes at a time and most of those occasions were while you were standing on your feet or when you stopped crawling for a moment in some cold, wet shrubs just to see where death might be approaching you from next. For the survivor DayZ is (or should be) hell come to earth. You sometimes wonder if those that died in the first days of the apocalypse were really the lucky ones...

"Lone wolfing" is only the focus of this thread and others like it because of artificial metagaming that many players have accepted as the norm. Everyone starts as a lone wolf, and without clans, forums, and apps like TS or Mumble most players would eventually die a lone wolf too. No, I don't think the "lone wolf" is the problem, I think it's the state that if anything should be the one being encouraged. The only grouping, ideally, would be those made with other players in the game, whether you know them or not. This is the way I play... as a "lone wolf" that generally takes a roll of the dice in trusting someone I meet and they either kill me or we play together for awhile. This is the way it should be for everyone to increase the immersion of this game.

Could things be done to encourage grouping like this? Sure. As one poster said some time ago "Make the zombie encounters so frequent and so deadly that IF you actually run into another survivor your first emotional response is a sigh of RELIEF, not a gasp of panic." Put zombies all over the entire map allow survivors to clear a town, farm, base, etc. by preventing zombie respawns in a certain range of a player *while* they are in a cleared developed area. Spawn them on the outside of town with a tendency to want to move towards buildings instead... unless the farm/town/base is free of players for a time, then spawn zombies there too, as normal. Make the wilderness so dangerous that to lone wolf it up the NW air field is for most a time consuming way of committing suicide. Cleared developed areas then become a sort of safe haven for survivors. Sure, they might try to shoot you, but why waste a bullet if there are 100 zombies trying to enter town too?

Want to really simulate a zombie apocalypse? Have only direct chat. Spawn a new player on a random server within a certain ping range and don't tell them which one it is. Trying to meet up with your buddies on TS? Probably isn't going to happen unless you are very, very lucky. If you log off from a server your character is left on the server, on the ground, asleep. Will he still be there, still be alive whenever you decide to log back in again? Who knows. Maybe if you "slept" in part of a town that was cleared and reasonably secure... Then a survivor with 48 hours of in-game survival would mean a VERY different thing.

Drugs and depression for playing the game the way that most accurately reflects the scenario? Not needed.

[Marshy (DayZ) 0]

I'm a lonewolf, because at the moment none of my friends have the game, and I don't like the idea. Maybe it's because I hate it when people suggest how to incentivise a playstyle.

This causes a problem for lone players and lone bandits but not for group players and so I don't see it as a good idea. Being a lone wolf I would get this status effect thing and it would put me at a disadvantage, maybe even get me killed. What if I can't find any pills? Also I don't think it works as a concept. Not everybody gets depressed if they are by themselves for a while. Maybe social people who depend on interaction. What about people who enjoy/don't mind isolation?

I wish people would stop trying to encourage playstyles and just focus on additions that affect everybody's game the same way and fixes to important problems.

Also, instead of encouraging playstyles, why not just make zombies a bigger threat than humans. Make them spawn all over, make them more deadly. Doing this will force players to take refuge, be it with players or by clearing an area. Implement the fortress idea where a player loots blueprints and uses wood to build walls and gates and storage etc. like in the warfare gamemode.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Well said Oktyabr.

[Scerun 227]

Anti-depressants? That's cool and stuff but seem kinda severe for someone who is just feeling a bit lonesome.

Why not some alcohol, too? That makes you feel better about almost anything! Ofcourse, drinking too much whiskey will make your aim all pathetic. I consider that a good trade off! Why not add cigarettes/cigars, too? These too could help comfort the character and keep him or her sane.

I'm thinking that this could be a cool feature, you know.

Implement a system of sanity thresholds, ranging from "Sane" to "LJASDIAFYSYCASVBATSHITCRAZYKAVSDLJALALKK". At the beginning stages, you might find you lack the ability to focus on things in excess of 1km.

In the medium stages (DEPRESSION?), you'll find that your ability to focus on objects is worsened to maybe 500/600m, your aim is shakey, your cahracter mumbles loudly to him/herself when not in combat (attracting attention), you might find your reload times become longer, your spend longer unconcious.

At the worse stages(INSANE?), you'll find things become blurry in excess of 400m, your aim wavers about after too long, you take longer to recover your aim after sprinting. You might find that your character falls unconcious after being still for too long. Reload times are longer, you cannot sprint as far (AHEM ADD IN A SPRINT METER LIMIT THANKS). You find yourself needing to eat more food and more water more often, too. Hallucinations would be kinda cool. Sometimes the zombies look like survivors.

I figure that you should only need anti depressants in the worse stage in order to get back out of it, there would be no human contact that could help you out at that point. YOU'D NEED DRUGS AND LOTS OF THEM. Alcohol, Cigarettes would suffice in controlling the affects up that stage, and could keep your character happily in the "sane" threshold so long as those supplies last.

But you know, if you added a stamina system in the game, rocket, you could make Alcohol, Cigarettes, depression/insanity affect these negatively, and it would stay pretty authentic and make players deem to stay as happy as possible.

EDIT: Cigarettes/Cigars/Alcohol would be awesome to trade between players, too.

SECOND EDIT: I think the general notion is calling it "insanity" is bad. It makes people feel weak - at a disadvantage. Calling it something such as stress, would be far better, I reckon.

[SEF 0]

This idea is too subjective and unfair for lone-wolfs.

[punisher_1 3]

Well I might be old at 40 but I never would take drugs to make me feel "right"

A few people would be okay with all the strife going on and maybe even do better.

Just think, no more bills, no more debit, I can take what I want, I can build what I want, I can make friends or kill bad people that deserve it

I can forge a new life and make things better for others. No more hate, no more racism or equal opportunity bullshit, the content of one’s soul equals their value, no more lefties because they are all dead ( they hate guns you know ) only the most resourceful survive. Ah, Utopia it just needs a little clean up.

.

[oktyabr 53]

Well I might be old at 40 but I never would take drugs to make me feel "right"

A few people would be okay with all the strife going on and maybe even do better.

Just think' date=' no more bills, no more debit, I can take what I want, I can build what I want, I can make friends or kill bad people that deserve it

I can forge a new life and make things better for others. No more hate, no more racism or equal opportunity bullshit, the content of one’s soul equals their value, no more lefties because they are all dead ( they hate guns you know ) only the most resourceful survive. Ah, Utopia it just needs a little clean up.

.

Nice post!

I'm 45! It made me wonder, reading that, if real life age and experience really does influence the way a game like DayZ is played... I mean, I'm sure it does to an extent, but to a remarkable degree? Maybe younger players cling to the metagaming "group with friends" thing more often and maybe old gray wolves like you and I are just as much at home running solo, from the sort of perspective you've described? A bit off topic, I know, but it got me thinking...

[Sakinoko 0]

Marshy and Oktyabr have good ideas and input, and I would honestly love to see the zombies be a bigger threat which would naturally cause people to be more likely to work together than be apart.

The concept of this has been suggested numerous times though, and Rocket has said he likes the concept of the humans being the real threat and the zombies just being a minor, but constant, side problem in this world.

I think this is why Rocket was interested in this idea of some sort of mental aspect with possible drugs (and their side effects). It doesn't rely on removing the human threat element, but it does add more depth to the game. A lot of arguments for the emotional aspect should only be between keyboard and chair is a good one, however, it really doesn't seem like adding more tension with more mechanics would ruin that... at least to me.

I agree that the game is great as is, but would adding depth to it really make it less great? If you have to maintain a character's mental health does that detract from the game? I honestly feel that since we aren't personally in this situation it's a good simulation of handling if we were (regardless of how some people might think they'd handle it). Our characters are not ourselves, they are a template for us to project portions of ourselves onto, but they will never be truly us. We cant all fly and repair helicopters, jump out and take a crack shot at someone's head from 500 meters away, and then build a car from scrap parts we found (and carry around with us); since we can do that in game perhaps we can also have mental issues in game too?

My opinion still stands, Budiak has the most balanced suggestion and it really adds something to the game without going crazy on one group or another.

[suiside 20]

mental issues.... we are gamers isn't that enough ?

you're in a world with infected people aka zombies, the game states them as zombies the creator as infected, mental enough ?

you may kill a bandit but not a survivor because your face changes, but zombies shoot them, they are just infected people and we have yet to find a cure, shoot them.

mental enough ?

you loot and shoot. mental enough ?

god, you want pills with that ? please go watch some reality show.

i really wonder why people think pills are any help in game or irl

maybe you should think more and shoot less, drink less and watch your diet

maybe some idiot comes with the idea that red meat is bad for you and the vegan population demands that meat eaters gain less health or die from heart attacks

pills

really ? we got morphine epi and painkillers. empty JD bottles all over, maybe fill them up first so you can make a JD cola

a red bull instead ?

sorry the whole pills to make you better is fucking up the real world and you want that to cross over in the game world ?

maybe for that sake yes but do not make them mandatory for single type players.

that is pushing the punishment again

edit for constructive shit

this game needs a form of communication other than voip or writing,

like i said before, have an option to visually communicate intentions

[oktyabr 53]

The concept of this has been suggested numerous times though' date=' and Rocket has said he likes the concept of the humans being the real threat and the zombies just being a minor, but constant, side problem in this world.

[/quote']

No, I'm not sure I've ever read "zombies just being a minor, but constant, side problem in this world." in one of rocket's posts. It's called DayZ for a reason. Humans will *always* be the real threat in this game, as long as PVP exists... Unless the zombies learn to behave like survivors, can deceive others, shoot weapons and develop a taste for beans ;)

I think this is why Rocket was interested in this idea of some sort of mental aspect with possible drugs (and their side effects). It doesn't rely on removing the human threat element' date=' but it does add more depth to the game. A lot of arguments for the emotional aspect should only be between keyboard and chair is a good one, however, it really doesn't seem like adding more tension with more mechanics would ruin that... at least to me.

[/quote']

I don't think anyone is saying "adding more tension with more mechanics would ruin that". I personally just think elements to artificially depict how a player is "feeling" is the wrong approach. Use mechanics that enhance the real feelings, tension and anxiety of the player, not fake ones that only affect the character in the game.

I agree that the game is great as is' date=' but would adding depth to it really make it less great? If you have to maintain a character's mental health does that detract from the game? I honestly feel that since we aren't personally in this situation it's a good simulation of handling if we were (regardless of how some people might think they'd handle it). Our characters are not ourselves, they are a template for us to project portions of ourselves onto, but they will never be truly us. We cant all fly and repair helicopters, jump out and take a crack shot at someone's head from 500 meters away, and then build a car from scrap parts we found (and carry around with us); since we can do that in game perhaps we can also have mental issues in game too?

[/quote']

There is a big difference between portraying physical actions and mental states. As I've said in an authentic portrayal ALL the survivors would be suffering from great mental stress and possible disorders. A simple pill for simple depression created by "loneliness" is like suggesting a simple aspirin might be the golden cure for an ebola pandemic or the bubonic plague. Depression from being lonely, i.e. the "lone wolf" play style, would authentically be a very minor disorder in such a world and a very minor problem to be solved, IMHO.

Want to encourage grouping? Temporary player cleared safe houses/zones that zombies simply don't respawn in. Zombies in the wilderness. More mechanics like the blood transfusion that requires another player to make happen... like splinting a broken bone, wrapping cracked ribs, carrying large objects like engine blocks and rotor assemblies. Like keeping a barn or a city block zombie free.

[Budiak 1]

The only things that could encourage grouping without breaking the game for other styles of play would be things that are not necessary for a successful game. Such as splinting, blood bags, etc. Things that are inherently and materially dependent upon a group.

Without the support system, the Lone Wolf cannot take advantage of these things. But he also has the freedom of movement and self-destination that groups do not have. Those are valuable, as well. There is no in-fighting or cannabalism with the Lone Wolf, like there is in any group, Bandit or Survivor alike.

With that, I think the system we have now is fine. Players play a certain way because they want to and not because they are forced to. The game elicits emotional responses based on how a player plays. Lone Wolves are perfectly comfortable alone in the woods. When a player sees another, he instantly has an emotional response of fear, maybe dread, and the heart starts beating. When a group sees another player they are much more calm- at least that is my experience.

Groups also don't know when to shut up and sometimes get jumped because they feel invincible.

These are the real, human, tangible effects of playing certain ways. There does not need to be a mechanic to simulate what we already feel as human beings by taking differing paths in the game. It would also destroy what makes this particular game so unique.

[Swi1ch 39]

I'm opposed to this idea.

In DayZ I love that you are not constrained by RPG stats, aside from things that would equally affect everyone; hunger, thirst and health. If you can aim better than another guy, it's because you can aim better than another guy, not because you have a better stat.

This idea to me feels like a stat that controls the way you play the game, whereas real people's response to isolation would vary significantly between different people. Sure, hunger and thirst differs between people but not really to the extent that social interaction does. It's also something that people can adjust to; over time you can get used to less and less social interaction (I regularly happily go several weeks without any human interaction).

I would be more be more in support of this idea if there was some sort of compromise for eschewing human contact (Perhaps increased sensitivity to human sounds, as they stand out to you more or something), otherwise a player is being needless forced into a certain play style that is not essential to surviving.