Why I play as a bandit and some analysis

[svefngenglar 19]

I've become more and more fascinated with the development of this mod. I watch every interview with Dean I can find as I'm studying games design currently and find he talks a lot about what we learn in terms of design concepts.

Here's a little history about my playing. I consider myself a hardcore gamer. My history is mostly RTS and FPS. Starcraft kicked off this habit of competition and I've been hooked ever since. War3 and Frozen Throne came out and I climbed to the top 200 on US West as a solo player. My band started to become more active and I no longer had the time to compete and switched to DotA and counterstrike which gave me short bursts of competitive play. From there I spent a couple years playing League of Legends but had average rankings in that.

This history seems a bit left of field but let me explain. The reason I play as a bandit is because not only do I not need anyone else to survive, most players in fact hold me back and cause issues. Even the guys I regularly play with will often frustrate me by doing stupid things and cause issues I'd never cause on my own. I often live a lot longer playing alone, even in the north. Part of this is the fact we don't play too often and don't take it seriously a lot of the time but part of it is also groups tend to complicate things. Even watching teams like Sacriel, you'll often catch members doing things wrong and causing issues.

MOST of the friendly encounters are new players on the coast. 99% I would say. You very rarely find players with gear, willing to risk it. So the times that I have played as a friendly I found nothing enjoyable come out of it. Mostly just players holding me back or backstabbing me at some point.

In a recent interview Dean discussed balancing out play styles with some new mechanics or tweaking existing ones. This is a concept we have discussed at university and one that I like. Instead of restricting bandit behaviour, you open up playing styles on the opposite side to make it more worthwhile. We discuss DayZ a lot at school and I wanted to pass a few ideas onwards and see what people think.

Due to the nature of games, realism in some ways is impossible. The main concept that illustrates this in DayZ is ethics. Everyone knows this is a game, therefore trying to imply a sense of value to a life in a game is an incredibly difficult task. It's really just pixels and the majority of players won't think twice about putting a bullet in someones head. If everyone was to commit to role playing in DayZ, then this could be achieved, but that is not a likely scenario. The issue for me is that I can easily survive alone and so not only do random players not have value to me, they often have an implied negative value to me.

This is where the concept of authenticity Rocket discusses comes into play. It is necessary with some concepts to implement unrealistic mechanics in order to achieve certain goals. While you lose "realism", you can curb player behavior. I think this is where the skill sets come into play. Doctors, mechanics etc. Someone who can save your life becomes very valuable in a scenario such as this and so their avatars life has value to you and possibly others. I also think it's more authentic that not everyone is a doctor/mechanic/sniper from the second they spawn on the beach. If I were to list my skills relative to a DayZ enviroment and rank them they'd look like this.

- Guns skills - 7/10. I grew up on a farm and have fired pistols, shotguns and scoped rifles.

- Medical skills - 4/10. Basic first aid, reasonable knowledge of what to do in most average situations. Something like a gunshot wound though? Haha.

- Mechanic skills - 2/10. I can change oil and water and rollstart a car. Fill it with gas. Change tyres.

- Running speed/fitness - 7/10. Smoker but in reasonable health. I can sprint pretty quickly as I'm quite tall.

You could go on but you see what I'm getting at. There are some skills in the game such as sniping which are learned in game, and I'd like to see some implementation of that but it's unlikely for example that you could become an excellent doctor or mechanic in a real world situation. So in my opinion this mechanic improves authenticity and increases the odds that players will work together due to each skill having value in game. Imagine the quick little Asian guy in the walking dead who is small and sprints around scouting. Or the redneck with the crossbow who can track. These dynamics are what makes the show interesting but also what makes the group dynamics interesting.

If the environment was much more difficult to survive in, again, players lives would hold more value. It would also introduce interesting elements like "pulling a Shane". If areas with high loot were extremely difficult to invade solo, other players would then have more value to even the best of players, and thus it's more likely you will want to team up for loot and less likely to just put a round in them at first glance.

When I imagine the perfect zombie survival game, I picture zombie films with large numbers of FAST zombies that are brutally harsh. You get bitten, you're pretty much screwed. Now I'm not familiar with the technical limitations of the ARMA engine so I'm not sure exactly how possible it is to increase the number and harshness of zombies. The world should be so intolerably difficult that players almost have to band together. Is that not what it's like in the films? This is again a question of authenticity, not realism. Harsh environment will breed teamwork.

The other issue that is often discussed is the value of loot. Even with the massive influx of hacked gear, loot is incredibly valuable. We've discussed what would happen if you made loot more available and what would happen if you made it less available and as to whether or not that would make people more or less likely to place value on lives. Either scenario really makes it difficult. If there was an excess of it, one of the core mechanics of the game would becoming meaningless and most likely result in players killing out of boredom again. If it were to be even rarer, those with that gear would probably be shot on sight, but the majority of players with average gear might not be so trigger happy.

Same thing with food, if it was too rare, people would kill for it, if it wasn't rare enough, the challenge would be gone. All I can say about loot is good luck! :P. For now you seem to have struck a pretty nice balance so most of us have faith that you'll nail it in the standalone too.

That's all that's coming to my mind right now, hope it was somewhat of an interesting read. Not so much suggestion but more of an analysis of what we're discussing at university.

Cheers

[561tmoney 4]

Good post I like the idea of maybe at the beginning picking a class, Medic, soldier, survivor, etc.... and building other skills. you'd have to have some sort of cap and make it so you get far more points for killing ppl as opposed to an empty server with zombies

[Bombolz (DayZ) 23]

Everyone is a survivor, but picking a class? That's not what DayZ is about.....sorry but I have to disagree with you on that

[svefngenglar 19]

I'm not saying pick a class. I'm saying much like the real world, people would have varying levels of skill. I'm not suggesting mmo style points with leveling. That would certainly detract from the experience. But some system of people having varying levels of skills to encourage cooperation and to mimic a real world scenario. As I said, it seems silly to me that everyone is a doctor, gun expert, athlete and sniper and the only variance is gear.

If you for example imagine a fat guy who can't run but who can repair weapons exceptionally well or is a doctor. It adds a beautiful dynamic to the game. His life holds value to you and he also requires protection. You simply will not get these group interactions without the variance in attributes.

EDIT: It would be REALLY interesting if they were assigned randomly too. :o

Edited September 17, 2012 by svefngenglar

[starwarsfan@gmx.de 450]

Which would completly kill solo playability. Besides, most Bandits are rolling with groups anyway and can easily balance their group through out of game communication which in turn gives them a huge advantage over groups that were brought together by chance.

[hoik 415]

Ok, I will bite - again.

I agree, some sort of skill system should be tryed while the mods in alpha, it needs a trial run at the least - it has alot of potential to influence the outcomes of random encounters within the game.

If it is implemented well, it will not kill solo play.

The issue of loot/food and how this could influence player behaviour is an interest of mine, and aside from skills I belive manipulating these the desity/quality pf items is essential to keep the game interesting.

The other issue that is often discussed is the value of loot. Even with the massive influx of hacked gear, loot is incredibly valuable. We've discussed what would happen if you made loot more available and what would happen if you made it less available and as to whether or not that would make people more or less likely to place value on lives. Either scenario really makes it difficult. If there was an excess of it, one of the core mechanics of the game would becoming meaningless and most likely result in players killing out of boredom again. If it were to be even rarer, those with that gear would probably be shot on sight, but the majority of players with average gear might not be so trigger happy.

Same thing with food, if it was too rare, people would kill for it, if it wasn't rare enough, the challenge would be gone. All I can say about loot is good luck! :P. For now you seem to have struck a pretty nice balance so most of us have faith that you'll nail it in the standalone too.

But have you considered letting the players, through their every action, determin the desity/quality of loot that is spawned - infact introducing a system of causality. heres an example of how I think it could work, but I would like to see some alternatives.

EG: This is a summery of my thread "life/death calculator = intrinsic value/culture" (the first link in my sig)

- Put essential/exotic items on oposite ends of a sliding scale. The scale dictates items spawning (density and frequency).

- the average PvP/Co-operative behavior of a server adjusts the scale

- high PvP deaths keeps the slider at the 'essential' end of the scale: This means the spawn chance of 'essential' items is high and the spawn chance of 'exotic' items is low. The overall density of items is high.

- High Average Life Expectancy (ALE) moves the slider to the 'exotic' end of the slider meaning the spawn chance of 'exotic' items is high and the spawn chance of 'essential' items is low. The overall density of items is low.

- There is now a clear definition of a players value to themselves and others.

This IMO is a rather simple way of making causality effect the one thing all players value (minus hackers) their loot. Of course this is not a cure all, there would have to be a mirriade of other tools implemented into the game, not the least better identification and communication.

This probably falls under the "unrealistic methods" you mention, but IMO it is a effective way to simulate 'causaliy' while keeping it a very player driven system with outcomes that are genuine if not 'realistic'.

There has been quite alot of attention on the forum on skills giving value to players lives, and I 100% agree. But I would really like some discussion on how causality could be used to influence play.

(also, here is an interesting thread on skills, with alot of good discussion: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/86283-experienced-survivors/ )

Edited September 17, 2012 by Hoik

[svefngenglar 19]

Ok, I will bite - again.

I agree, some sort of skill system should be tryed while the mods in alpha, it needs a trial run at the least - it has alot of potential to influence the outcomes of random encounters within the game.

If it is implemented well, it will not kill solo play.

The issue of loot/food and how this could influence player behaviour is an interest of mine, and aside from skills I belive manipulating these the desity/quality pf items is essential to keep the game interesting.

But have you considered letting the players, through their every action, determin the desity/quality of loot that is spawned - infact introducing a system of causality. heres an example of how I think it could work, but I would like to see some alternatives.

EG: This is a summery of my thread "life/death calculator = intrinsic value/culture" (the first link in my sig)

- Put essential/exotic items on oposite ends of a sliding scale. The scale dictates items spawning (density and frequency).

- the average PvP/Co-operative behavior of a server adjusts the scale

- high PvP deaths keeps the slider at the 'essential' end of the scale: This means the spawn chance of 'essential' items is high and the spawn chance of 'exotic' items is low. The overall density of items is high.

- High Average Life Expectancy (ALE) moves the slider to the 'exotic' end of the slider meaning the spawn chance of 'exotic' items is high and the spawn chance of 'essential' items is low. The overall density of items is low.

- There is now a clear definition of a players value to themselves and others.

This IMO is a rather simple way of making causality effect the one thing all players value (minus hackers) their loot. Of course this is not a cure all, there would have to be a mirriade of other tools implemented into the game, not the least better identification and communication.

This probably falls under the "unrealistic methods" you mention, but IMO it is a effective way to simulate 'causaliy' while keeping it a very player driven system with outcomes that are genuine if not 'realistic'.

There has been quite alot of attention on the forum on skills giving value to players lives, and I 100% agree. But I would really like some discussion on how causality could be used to influence play.

(also, here is an interesting thread on skills, with alot of good discussion: http://dayzmod.com/f...nced-survivors/ )

Thanks for the great response. I like the concept of loot effecting behavior. I'm not sure how you could implement it with the current server setup. Players joining and leaving etc. One thing you touched on that stuck out to me was identification and communication. These two concepts are extremely relevant. Now, identification again stretches into "unrealistic" territory. Would you have people dressing in certain ways in an apocalypse in reality? Probably not. But in a real apocalypse people probably wouldn't shoot on sight. This again highlights the issues inherent in adapting reality into games. So in the context of a game, it may be useful to have an identification system so that players can spot friendlies or bandits. (Hence why Rocket reintroduced skins.).

More importantly though, communication. What would almost everyone carry in a real apocalypse? I have one in my car right now. CB radio. Radios are already in the engine. Now imagine I was injured and could ask if there was anyone within a 20km radius if they could supply first aid or food or water. This is a mechanic I would LOVE to see introduced and one that could theoretically provide more incentive for grouping. I know most people right now are going to bring up side chat. I think restricting it to a 20km radius along with being realistic, is more likely to create an atmosphere of, the people I am speaking to are in my vicinity. And I think entirely ditching text based communication is a necessity for authenticity as well. While I can't cite any actual studies, I believe that vocal communication holds a lot more weight than text based.

I ran over the post you linked and it's not quite what I picture. It's a little bit too RPG and I think the implementation should be based around the idea of increasing group play. Some of the ideas in that post are simply improved skills that really don't serve to increase the value of players lives in a group setting. Some do, but again, not written in that context.

Thanks again for the great reply though.

Cheers.

[lozz08 0]

Right now there are groups of people playing the game that are highly organized and ruthless.

For example almost all of the youtubers I have seen.

I think making zombies much more lethal and adding the possibility of infection will make dayz a lot better all round. Either dayz must have an endgame, or it must be impossible to survive indefinitely. Anything in between hastens the onset of boredom. I prefer the latter (Make it like Doom II on nightmare :D).

[Lewf 27]

OBS: In the war z, they are implementing skills (but havent specified how so far, as far as i know) and i think that could be good or bad.

In the real world, people are what they are: Tall, short, fast, slow, medics, businessmen, mechanics, soldiers, etc etc etc. In a zombie apocalypse situation, each person would survive in their own way, but together they would survive even better. I see the point of your post, and agree to it at some point. However, i think that depends on where does rocket want to go: does he want everyone to have the same skills and possibilities? Or maybe have everyone playing in their own style and hopefully forming groups for a greater array of possiblities of what do do in the game, or simply survive more easily? The way the project is going, I would say the later. It would be great for the formation of groups, and it would not necessarily destroy the realism. As I said in the beggining of this post, people are what they are in the real life, and those skills would come in handy each in its own way. Good post! You have my beans

[bazbake 456]

A simpler way to do this would be to remove tents and vehicle storage and then balance character performance based on their loadout.

A lightly-encumbered character could run faster but they would have less firepower, food, and ammo. A heavily-encumbered character drags ass and can't run as far but they could carry heavier weapons and more equipment.

Teams would have advantages in that they could pick and choose which players carry what and then organize based on firepower and movement. You could have an overwatch heavy who moves slowly but can go unseen in ghillie camo, a mechanic who carries around parts and tools to repair things as well as a single canteen and can of food so he doesn't get completely slowed down, and a swift and fast medic with an assault rifle and medicine could dart from player to player swiftly providing healing.

As it stands, everyone is a rogue on their way to glass cannon status. Unless they have camo or a ghillie suit or a hero outfit, in which case they're also a tank. Since gear determines your performance, just tie more of a character's performance to their gear and force them to choose their gear far more carefully instead of having an infinite supply to go back to.

[hoik 415]

Thanks for the great response. I like the concept of loot effecting behavior. I'm not sure how you could implement it with the current server setup. Players joining and leaving etc.

This is an issue with the idea, I address this and other issues in my thread - http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/8616-lifedeath-calculator-intrinsic-valueculture/

One thing you touched on that stuck out to me was identification and communication. These two concepts are extremely relevant. Now, identification again stretches into "unrealistic" territory.

It doesn't have to - this would be my ideal: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/19099-hey-i-know-you/ - by HardTarget

More importantly though, communication. What would almost everyone carry in a real apocalypse? I have one in my car right now. CB radio. Radios are already in the engine. Now imagine I was injured and could ask if there was anyone within a 20km radius if they could supply first aid or food or water. This is a mechanic I would LOVE to see introduced and one that could theoretically provide more incentive for grouping. I know most people right now are going to bring up side chat. I think restricting it to a 20km radius along with being realistic, is more likely to create an atmosphere of, the people I am speaking to are in my vicinity. And I think entirely ditching text based communication is a necessity for authenticity as well. While I can't cite any actual studies, I believe that vocal communication holds a lot more weight than text based.

Yeah I've spent my share of time crawling hopelessly through the wilderness with a broken leg ;), strangly it was kind of relaxing...

Also, side chat is totally immersion breaking IMO...

I ran over the post you linked and it's not quite what I picture. It's a little bit too RPG and I think the implementation should be based around the idea of increasing group play. Some of the ideas in that post are simply improved skills that really don't serve to increase the value of players lives in a group setting. Some do, but again, not written in that context.

Yeah, the OP isn't the best I've come across but it does have some good discussion.

This one might be more to your liking - http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/32582-learning-by-doing-the-alternative-to-classes-professions/ - by LOG!N

Thanks again for the great reply though.

Thank you.