Extension to one of Rocket's idea: Gear damage by gunfire

[psycho84 0]

This is an extension of an idea Rocket himself eluded to:

and add in that when you kill someone it has a chance to destroy some of their gear.

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=7740&pid=74874#pid74874

It's a nice consequence to simply shooting someone for their gear instead of exploring other ways to get what you want off them. Robbery' date=' pickpocketing, trading will all become much more attractive in balance to murder. However, I would go one step further and tie the chance of some of your targets gear being destroyed to the grade/caliber of weapon used.

Something like this:

Shoot someone with a crossbow = no chance any of their gear is destroyed (beware any man with a crossbow :D )

Shoot someone with a Makerov = low chance some of their gear is destroyed

Shoot someone with a AK = medium chance some of their gear is destroyed

Shoot someone with a CZ 550 = high chance some of their gear is destroyed

Shoot someone with a M107 = very high chance some of their gear is destroyed

Given that the higher grade/caliber weapons are the best for killing players it makes sence from a mechanic, authenticity, and realism perspective that they carry a higher consequence of use. Much like their sound levels and zombie agro'ness consequence (not including rare SD's though I guess)

[i']NOTE: This ides WILL NOT work unless survival is made tougher for everyone. That means lower food/drink spawn rates and like Rocket suggested, spawning without a weapon or gear. Even a kitted out bandit needs to be concerned about their survival for this to work!

The additional benefit to such a mechanic (with the increased survival dificulty) is that anyone that still chooses to kill everyone is now a certified badass. Why? Because in a world that is super harsh, with limited supplies, they STILL shot you knowing full well they might destroy that nice weapon you are carrying and rupture all those tasty cans of beans and coke in your backpack!

Pro's:

-Incentives for non-murder based banditry

-Encourages more player interaction

-Consequences for shoot-on-sight gameplay

-Highlights true bandit badasses

Con's:

-Requires general survival dificulty increase through loot spawn reduction

-Robbery and pickpocketing might be suseptible to Alt-F4 (although Rocket is onto that)

Lastly, this idea is based on authenticity, not straight realism. Yes shooting someone in the head wouldn't destroy their gun in real life, but that misses the point. This is a game mechanic intended to be a catalyst for authentic social interaction!

[BakedBean 0]

You can rob then murder.... Boom.

[psycho84 0]

You can rob then murder.... Boom.

Sure can! Or they can shoot you first.

Choices, choices, what to do, what to do...

[ElemenoP 60]

Why should there be consequences for successfully killing someone? You're the one who went and got himself shot.

Does a diceroll too see if your beans disintegrate when you die make you feel that much better?

Does it make someone less likely to kill you? Especially when, chances are, with the roles reversed you'd do the same?

Do you think that people will suddenly play nice with one another because there's a chance their bullet will metaphorically ruin a bandage or a water bottle?

This is a bad idea.

It tried to encourage and favor certain playstyles in a very vague and arbitrary manner.

[Toyota (DayZ) 0]

I like the idea of gear destruction and the caliber:destruction ratio but I don't think its going to improve the social climate with less food being implemented. If anything more people will want to kill each other since your still likely to grab cans from the dead even if a few are destroyed.

Maybe a better idea would be to go with the aforementioned idea of making fewer weapon drops and remove starting weaponry. With the next patch implementing hiding, groups of people have more options when it comes to looting a town. A group of re-spawned player could have one guy act as bait and draw out the zeds while the others loot the town.

[psycho84 0]

Why should there be consequences for successfully killing someone? You're the one who went and got himself shot.

Does a diceroll too see if your beans disintegrate when you die make you feel that much better?

Does it make someone less likely to kill you? Especially when' date=' chances are, with the roles reversed you'd do the same?

Do you think that people will suddenly play nice with one another because there's a chance their bullet will metaphorically ruin a bandage or a water bottle?

This is a bad idea.

It tried to encourage and favor certain playstyles in a very vague and arbitrary manner.

[/quote']

Have you read, oh I don't know, ANY of Rockets ideas?

The game is being built around consequences for actions.

---

I like the idea of gear destruction and the caliber:destruction ratio but I don't think its going to improve the social climate with less food being implemented. If anything more people will want to kill each other since your still likely to grab cans from the dead even if a few are destroyed.

Yeah, maybe not. But if people need food, as in really need it, then they are going to have a good think about how to get it (right now noone does or needs to).

Go blasting away and you risk either getting shot back or starving.

Imagine the interaction between two people with red flashing food icons lol.

[ElemenoP 60]

Not that I buy into everything rocket says being interpreted as the word of god, but I'm literally quoting him here:

"This IS stupid. So do something about it. Posting "aw everyone kills everyone" on the forums is what people have been doing for ages. Has it worked? NO. So try something else. I see a few groups are doing different stuff, and they're keeping quiet about it. It's obvious from the database those people who are adjusting to the "anti-game" environment and those who aren't.

I don't have the resources or the inclination to balance the game, or develop some kind of punishment system. So that just ain't going to happen, even if it was within the scope of the project (and its not)."

This idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Killing players is a dangerous affair in and of itself. You can get shot at back, zombies can swarm you, you give your position away and you expend ammunition.

All of those are consequences that make logical sense. Having your targets gear randomly disappear does not. It's arbitrary, and it's beyond the player's control. If you give someone the oppurinity to kill you cleanly, that's your fault. Your killer shouldn't be punished for it.

Also, your thread title is too damn long. I have to edit the title every time I tell you you're wrong.

[psycho84 0]

stuff

Did you even read my idea or are you one of those guys that just reads one word and then goes "oh this guy is anti pvp, flame on"? This idea has nothing to do with stopping PvP or killing. It's a consequence mechanic based on Rockets OWN IDEA which I quoted for you.

Lol, You might wanna go post this stuff Rockets thread about making crows and fly's circle your avatar because you have low humanity if you think this idea is "stupid".

Consequences dude, it's what the game is being built on. If you don't like them you should try and adapt and succeed instead of complaining.

[ElemenoP 60]

I read your post, and replied to it's points.

Did you see where I said things to the effect of:

"Having your gear disintegrate because you got shot (read: your idea) is a bad idea?"

Yeah, bullet caliber effects the percentages. Cool.

His idea, your idea, this idea, doesn't matter who's it is because it's bad. It's adding a bizarre, mysterious diceroll with no gameplay purpose other than discouraging players from shooting one another. Not even in an intelligent manner either, it's just "zap, piece of gear xyz is gone lol"

Adding crows or flies buzzing around you is also retarded. Do crows and flies follow murderers around? No. That'd be fucking weird. Do you get weird vibes looking at a picture of a serial killer? Yes. That's why the suggestion for a "subtle heartbeat sound" was made.

Did you read the list of consequences that are already in the game from engaging a player? Because those all actually make sense and don't revolve around send random pieces of a dead player's gear into an alternate dimension. I understand that this game revolves around consequences. Those consequences should make sense.

As for adapting, I don't really understand what you're trying to say since you're the one trying to de-incentivize player killing. Sounds like you've gotten shot up a bunch of times and you want your killers to suffer the "consequences." Beyond that, please quote me on what I've been complaining about.

[psycho84 0]

-The idea a catalyst for social interaction

-The idea is authentic, not realistic, as are most of the ingame mechanics.

-However, shooting up someone with a backpack full of stuff you wan't would likely damage a lot of it in real life too

-In combo with lower supply spawn rates both bandits and survivors, need to take care of their survival much moreso then currently

-This idea contains no punishment, no rules, no judgement on a play style and no rewards for a play style.

Saying:

"Having your gear disintegrate because you got shot (read: your idea) is a bad idea."

Is missing the point entirely.

[ElemenoP 60]

-The idea a catalyst for social interaction

-The idea is authentic' date=' not realistic, as are most of the ingame mechanics.

-However, shooting up someone with a backpack full of stuff you wan't would likely damage a lot of it in real life too

-In combo with lower supply spawn rates both bandits and survivors, need to take care of their survival much moreso then currently

-This idea contains no punishment, no rules, no judgement on a play style and no rewards for a play style.

Saying:

"Having your gear disintegrate because you got shot (read: your idea) is a bad idea."

Is missing the point entirely.

[/quote']

a) No it's not. The reason people aren't social is because trying to be social is a massive risk. If the other person doesn't take that risk, you die. Having a can of beans disappear off your corpse doesn't change that.

b) Authenticity and realism mean the virtually same thing in this context. Don't really know what you're getting at there. Also, just because players can be killed easily by bullets (a feature that is both authentic and realistic), and the game features realistic/authentic features, doesn't mean everything else must be

(see: Blood transfusions, humanity systems, morphine fixing broken legs, painkillers instantly removing the pain from gunshot wounds, meat restoring blood, finding guns in random buildings, washing up on a shore with survival equipment and guns, and lets not forget the fucking walking dead.)

c) While this is true, why implement it? It doesn't add anything to the experience. It doesn't promote anything. It's a minor inconvenience at best.

d) I don't know why everyone seems to think people pk for survival supplies. I kill people so they can't kill me. I'm perfectly capable of surviving off the world, and have never had the good fortune of finding someone to kill when I've actually needed supplies. If anything, reducing drop rates would make people more likely to kill one-another out of desperation for food. Having that food disappear makes people have to keep hunting for food, and keep killing.

e) It removes the loot you get from killing someone. It favors robbing a player (virtually impossible considering 9/10 times your mark will shoot back or disconnect.) over killing them. It suggests and makes preferable one option over another. That's what the word incentive means.

In the end, if someone needs your beans, and you let them take them, it's your fault. Waving your wand and randomly disappearing them doesn't do anything other than possibly maybe irritating your killer some of the time.

I'm not missing the point. I understand, you want there to be a simulated possibility of destroying gear because sometimes bullets destroy gear.

What I'm saying is that, in the context of a game, that's fucking stupid.

[spawn (DayZ) 217]

the thing is with the loss of getting the guys gear that you kill is that amunition and gear is not hard to get. also the chance of their gear not being there for you to pick up is worth it for a bantis who doesn't want your gear he wants a kill and then move on. I mean what is a guy with a DMR going to want with your loot. he doesn;t want your loot he wants the kill.

now if he kills another bandit maybe he will lose blood or soemthing. if he kills a survivor he will gain blood will be better. this means he has to be very carefull who he kills and will be more inclined to rob someone and not shoot them. or maybe once up close he looks at their face and onc he tells if their face is a bandit or survivour he will make his choice to kill or not to kill

---

the thing is with the loss of getting the guys gear that you kill is that amunition and gear is not hard to get. also the chance of their gear not being there for you to pick up is worth it for a bantis who doesn't want your gear he wants a kill and then move on. I mean what is a guy with a DMR going to want with your loot. he doesn;t want your loot he wants the kill.

now if he kills another bandit maybe he will lose blood or soemthing. if he kills a survivor he will gain blood will be better. this means he has to be very carefull who he kills and will be more inclined to rob someone and not shoot them. or maybe once up close he looks at their face and once he tells if their face is a bandit or survivour he will make his choice to kill or not to kill

[psycho84 0]

the thing is with the loss of getting the guys gear that you kill is that amunition and gear is not hard to get. also the chance of their gear not being there for you to pick up is worth it for a bantis who doesn't want your gear he wants a kill and then move on. I mean what is a guy with a DMR going to want with your loot. he doesn;t want your loot he wants the kill.

True. Thats why this idea needs to coincide with making loot rarer (which has actually been proposed a bunch of times in the last few days). The DMR guy might have a DMR but maybe he ran out of beans and has a red food icon. The game needs to do more to make the players need gear, not simply wan't it.

[TheProphecy 33]

There are already good enough reasons not to kill everyone you see, as Rocket's quote in ElemenoP's post described. I'll delve even further into the "bandit solutions."

1. We don't need nooby "safe zones" where people can't be killed - First of all, bandits will just setup at the edge of these safe zones, killing anyone who tries to enter/exit. Second, if you want to trade with someone, find a group of people to play with or take the risk of asking a randy. I had awesome success teaming with a random dude last night. Gave a guy a transfusion on the same server as well. I could've been killed by either one or vice versa, it's a gamble. That's part of the fun.

2. Bandits don't need flies or crows around them 24/7 - Sorry, this is a dumb idea. If you see someone walking around with a M16/Coyote Pack, do yourself a favor and be wary. In fact, I would suggest you kill that person and take his loot if you get the drop on him. It's survival of the fittest in DayZ.

3. We don't need degrading items because someone killed you - If someone killed you, deal with it. Man up, respawn and either get revenge on him if he's close, kill some people in Cherno/Elektro to ease the pain or if it bothers you that much be a smart person and leave Cherno/Elektro in the dust and gear up elsewhere. Also, this wouldn't stop anybody from killing. Wow, if I kill you a mag of your Makarov ammo might disappear, what a deterrent.

The ONLY post I've read that makes ANY SENSE at all regarding spotting bandits mentioned bandits having some blood (key word there is some) on their clothing if they kill enough people. It's subtle enough that it's not like, "HEY, OVER HERE, I'M A BANDIT," but at the same time if you managed to get close enough (or if you have binoculars or something) you could identify that person as being a bandit. What made this "solution" unique is that a bandit can remove the blood by finding some soap, which would be a rare spawn.

The bottom line is if you're complaining about the game being a deathmatch, you're probably spending too much time in Cherno/Elektro. Both of those areas are too much of a clusterfuck and there really is no penalty if you just run in and die. So yea, if you're not looking to die right away, avoid Cherno/Elektro, play on low population servers or preferably, both.

[spawn (DayZ) 217]

there is no consiquesnce for killing another player in the game anymore. except you become a bandit and you look just like everyone else in the same clothing.

---

making loot more rare will just mean more people will want to kill other people more often to loot their gear.

[psycho84 0]

The bottom line is if you're complaining about the game being a deathmatch' date=' you're probably spending too much time in Cherno/Elektro. Both of those areas are too much of a clusterfuck and there really is no penalty if you just run in and die. So yea, if you're not looking to die right away, avoid Cherno/Elektro, play on low population servers or preferably, both.

[/quote']

But im not doing anything of the sort? I like banditry!

I'm going to change the title.

[ElemenoP 60]

More specific title: Still a bad idea.

I saw your post before the the edit: it doesn't really make things interesting.

Overhauling the injury and damage system would be interesting.

Adding armbands and masks to allow players to voluntarily identify/differentiate would be interesting.

Adding nonlethal weapons (check my thread nudge nudge wink wink) would be interesting.

Randomly disappearing gear based on dicerolls is frustrating at best. It serves no purpose beyond being a minor inconvenience.

[hoik 415]

I agree that the best way to give players lives value is to directly relate them to items as they are the currency of the game - everybody gives them value. This solution is good because it is on the right tack, but...

@ psycho84

"NOTE: This ides WILL NOT work unless survival is made tougher for everyone. That means lower food/drink spawn rates and like Rocket suggested, spawning without a weapon or gear. Even a kitted out bandit needs to be concerned about their survival for this to work!"

I understand that less resources gives each item more value, so that a chance to destroy them (by PvP action) will make PvP a less atractive action and because of this people will hopefully find better ways than murder to swindle eachother - makes sense

But I disagree that using scarce resouces (increasing difficulty) is the way to encourage teamplay. It could just as easily go either way, and (IMHO) would acctually cause more conflict - scarcity promotes selfish impulses and only highly organised groups could function well in this enviroment - to force this as the default game mode is unreasonable - and as this is the main proviso to make this system work, I only support this as a stepping stone to more advanced systems.

(Search for posts on dynamic systems, now THAT (IMHO) is what we should be aiming for :) )

Edit: I really like this idea: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3420

[psycho84 0]

But I disagree that using scarce resouces (increasing difficulty) is the way to encourage teamplay. It could just as easily go either way' date=' and (IMHO) would acctually cause more conflict - scarcity promotes selfish impulses and only highly organised groups could function well in this enviroment - to force this as the default game mode is unreasonable - and as this is the main proviso to make this system work, I only support this as a stepping stone to more advanced systems.

(Search for posts on dynamic systems, now THAT (IMHO) is what we should be aiming for :) )

[/quote']

Yeah true, it's like what you see with the groups that occasionally control/farm loot points.

But is there a better alternate to the games current focus on gear (accumulating better and better stuff) then scarcity? Expiration/durability loss has been used in other games but that always seems universaly hated.

[mikyjax 3]

Yep OP, it s a good idea.

The guy has nvg on head, you make an headshot. NVG are fucked.

You re bad, next time you'll aim the chest :)

[psycho84 0]

Yep OP' date=' it s a good idea.

The guy has nvg on head, you make an headshot. NVG are fucked.

You re bad, next time you'll aim the chest :)

[/quote']

Then you might destroy his gun or ammo in his backpack. Or maybe you get lucky and just destroy a bandage. Who knows. But if you really want something it will make you really think about how to get it.

People don't seem to care much for life in DayZ but they sure care about gear :)

[rocket 16567]

I think there could be something here worth trying. Going to be a bit complex to code, but keep the discussion going.

[thoxon 26]

Keep it simple. The longer you keep and use your weapon, the greater the % of the gun jamming, barrell over heating,..etc. Prevents people from running around forever with the best gear and no consequences.

[psycho84 0]

I think there could be something here worth trying. Going to be a bit complex to code' date=' but keep the discussion going.

[/quote']

Cheers for the encouragement :) I'd send you some Marmite if there was any....

If the coding complexity is because gear destruction chance is based off caliber and weapon grade then maybe it could just start out as simply any shot has a set chance to destroy a piece of gear. Just to see if the idea has any merit in actual gameplay. Of course the other key element needed is an increase to resource scarcity so that it drives up the demand for basic supplies. People need to NEED stuff for them to think about how best to procure it.

Actually right now the only really scarce item is vehicles, and well, taking a vehicle owned by someone else carries much the same consequences as I've mentioned in my OP.

If you try and shoot the people driving the vehicle you are going to risk damaging a whole bunch of components. So instead do you steal it, jack it, be suuuper careful and try and hit the occupants, or do you just ask nicely for a lift lol :P

[mikyjax 3]

yes, it must be hard to code...

But it worth it. This is the only way to piss bandits off ;) and we like bandits tears...

Bullet in back pack and random stuff in back pack are fucked

Bullet in entire body, random stuff in gear inventory are fucked

Bullet in head, if the guy has NVG on head... too bad...

More bullets are shot, more increased are the chance to break stuffs.

If you really want to piss killers off... don't make stuffs desapears.. make theim not selectable XD