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

[Tyrog 10]

EDIT: Oh, maybe I got it wrong, when you mean " shoot someone with a M107 " it means that if you shoot with that weapon or that the dude has this weapon with him? I guess it's the weapon you're shooting with... which in that case would be more logical. Big caliber = more damage. I like the idea.

The problem with your system is that the damage done by the attacker depends on the quality of the weapon... The greater the weapon, the more damage to it. It should be the opposite. A M107 is much tougher than a crossbow or a Makarov and should sustain more abuse before getting damaged.

This would have an interesting effect. You wouldn't shoot people with shitty weapon because you're probably going to destroy it. People with high quality weapon on the other hand wouldn't suffer from damage to their weapon, making them a target of choice.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

I like this idea. I think some atrophy in the loot system is a good thing, right now once a set of NVG is in the game its in there for good if the player is murdered someone takes it.

I like the idea that good loot can be removed again from the system.

Explosions as well should really mess up your goods.

Also what if shooting someone in the backpack didn't hurt them but destroyed a higher percentage of their goods (i see that was suggested above gets my vote then) . Also perhaps the possibility of shooting a gun out of someones hand? I think the more ways there are to disarm and engage people in a non lethal fashion the better.

[psycho84 0]

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

[/quote']

I think you might have it backwards. This idea is related to youre shots damaging your targets gear. So you shoot another survivor and two of their cans of beans are destroyed.

But gear durability is a solid mechanic too, maybe post a thread about it. I'd bump it :)

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

+1 keeps the dynamics of the game, Not everyone wants to kill. I'd rather have more options.

[psycho84 0]

EDIT: Oh' date=' maybe I got it wrong, when you mean " shoot someone with a M107 " it means that if you shoot with that weapon or that the dude has this weapon with him? I guess it's the weapon you're shooting with... which in that case would be more logical. Big caliber = more damage. I like the idea.

[/quote']

Yep that's it :)

I like this idea. I think some atrophy in the loot system is a good thing' date=' right now once a set of NVG is in the game its in there for good if the player is murdered someone takes it.

I like the idea that good loot can be removed again from the system.

Explosions as well should really mess up your goods.

Also what if shooting someone in the backpack didn't hurt them but destroyed a higher percentage of their goods (i see that was suggested above gets my vote then) . Also perhaps the possibility of shooting a gun out of someones hand? I think the more ways there are to disarm and engage people in a non lethal fashion the better.

[/quote']

Rocket wants genuine reactions to in game events, however, unlike real life in DayZ people seem to care more about gear then their life. Ok, it's a game, fair enough. So to get people sweating, make gear scarcer and then put that gear in the firing line!

Yeah if a grenade goes off next to you it shouldn't leave your gear all nice a pristine sitting on your entrails :P

Ya know, the guns and I think backpacks in ArmA do have their own collision boxes which you can shoot (hitting them does no damage to the player). But I have no idea how hard it would be to code an effect on it being shot.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

Yeah i do seem to remember seeing a different effect when I shot a backpack that's what made me think they had different collision boxes or collision materials.

[psycho84 0]

Korgu's idea would fit well with this:

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9824

[pipe546 0]

And maybe when you kill someone in a headshot the gear dosen't injury.

[TheProphecy 33]

Korgu's idea would fit well with this:

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=9824

I don't get how this notion of less loot would suddenly make people work together. If anything, it would make me want to kill MORE, seeing as how I know you have gear and I may not come across some if I go into a town. Buddy up you say? Okay, and what happens when we come into town and we are extremely low on resources and after combing the entire town, together we find only one can of beans (entirely possible, seeing as how I raided Novy and Stary last night and didn't find A SINGLE can of food)? If my food indicator is red and you picked up the beans, you're dead, plain and simple. So much for teamwork.

I think this would encourage people to camp the spawns/Cherno/Elektro more than ever. People would just kill enough respawners, get enough food/water and then head north. And no, disappearing loot based on bullet damage still would not deter someone camping spawns along the coast.

[Techercizer 82]

I like how this presents a tradeoff between weapon power and effective looting. It makes every gun in Day Z have a place without actually upsetting the current situation of who uses what guns.

Newbies will mostly use weak guns because that's all they can find, and they will have the added benefit of being able to supplement their own meager inventories with those of the people they kill (the costal bean wars continue!)

Hunters will continue to snipe people from 500m with NVGs and DMRs, not giving a care in the world about what type of beans their newbie targets may have been holding.

The real interesting change will occur amongst bandits who hunt for loot and survivors who are just trying to get by. Unloading on someone with an assault rifle will be more of an act of defense than an opportunistic try for loot, and I'd expect to see more hold-ups and robberies if this change was implemented.

Perhaps most importantly, people who lose slow firefights will know that they at least had a chance to live, and people who instantly fall over dead in a gigantic clearing will know that their killer won't be getting much off their corpse. People who get randomly shot in the face will, as always, continue to be screwed. Such is life.

[Snork (DayZ) 0]

I like the idea, but as people said, having hitboxes in count, if you shoot someone on the back and hits the backpack chances are something will be lost, if you shoot him in the head, nothing will be lost... unless they have NVG. You could shoot him in the legs to break them and finish him off with a knife, but that would give him a chance to shoot you back, or recover and hide

[logan23 118]

Love the idea of shooting a player could lead to damaging their weapon or gear.

This means you need to get close to shoot the player in a way that will give you the lowest chance of damaging their gear/ your future loot. (Unless your a sniper)

Most gun fights are erratic and there will be in most cases something getting damaged or destroyed in the dead player's gear.

Will this also carry onto if say a gun fight happens but the players both break off and escape each other but now due to the gun fight they have a damage gear/ items? or only active after a player is killed?

[firebear 11]

This is retarded.

Assume I kill people to get their gear.

If the chance of their gear getting destroyed, that just means I'll have to kill even more survivors to get what I need.

Do YOU get happy because when you died, theres a chance I didnt get one thing from your inventory?

No, you'll still go to the forums and cry like the baby you are. And I'll have to shoot even more babies to find what I was looking for.

Heres a suggestion:

If I shoot you, I succeeded with what I attempted to do, and you failed at what you attempted to do (stay alive).

Why punish ME for succeeding in my action? You're the one who messed up, you deserved to die.

How about you babbys go play a game more suited for you? Like, The Sims or something.

[Time Glitch 453]

Here's an idea. Something that kills two birds with one stone:

So if this damage model were to be adopted, headshots would damage precious gear like NVGs and binocs and whatnot, and have a chance to damage some other gear. Body shots would destroy just about anything. But what about leg shots?

My proposal is to code this in such a way that shooting the legs actually destroys nothing, but leaves the player alive. They could be unconcious and lootable for a time, but they wouldn't automatically be dead.

This would give the bandits a chance to run up and loot what they wanted, and then the player might still have a chance to survive. Bandits win with undamaged loot, and the player wins by having a chance to keep going.

I think the catch here is that shooting someone unconscious has to start counting against humanity just as much as a murder. But other than that I think this idea has a lot of merit.

[TheProphecy 33]

Here's a scenario using your proposed solution, time:

I'm in Cherno and a bandit shoots my legs. I'm unconscious for whatever period of time you're proposing. Out of the mercy of his kind heart, the bandit doesn't put one in my head after he's done looting my body (which is what I would do if I were a bandit, BTW). I come out of the unconscious state to find the bandit took just about everything. Now I'm low on blood, ammo and I'm out of food/water/medicine. Is there really a legitimate reason to keep going when I can just hit the respawn button?

[StrikeGTX 3]

This is retarded.

Assume I kill people to get their gear.

If the chance of their gear getting destroyed' date=' that just means I'll have to kill even more survivors to get what I need.

Do YOU get happy because when you died, theres a chance I didnt get one thing from your inventory?

No, you'll still go to the forums and cry like the baby you are. And I'll have to shoot even more babies to find what I was looking for.

Heres a suggestion:

If I shoot you, I succeeded with what I attempted to do, and you failed at what you attempted to do (stay alive).

Why punish ME for succeeding in my action? You're the one who messed up, you deserved to die.

How about you babbys go play a game more suited for you? Like, The Sims or something.

[/quote']

Haha. This post is all kinds of retard.

This is tying in with the game becoming harder in general, eg. harder to find things like weapons and ammo, so you wont be "killing even more babies" you sir will be out of ammo at this rate and dead yourself.

As for your little "suggestion" at the bottom Yes you did succeed with what you did, you killed them, grats, your so great.

And yes they did end up dead. This isn't changing at all. You seem to be making out that this would be changing?

Its not. You just might not be getting great loot out of it anymore, therefore forcing you to take other avenues such as not shooting on sight every 5 secs.

Furthermore since this game and the engine its built on is aiming for realism this is only adding to the realism of it since, in real life if you do shoot at someone, or blow them up, there is a very real chance you can damage a possession they may have on them.

[psycho84 0]

Here's a scenario using your proposed solution' date=' time:

I'm in Cherno and a bandit shoots my legs. I'm unconscious for whatever period of time you're proposing. Out of the mercy of his kind heart, the bandit doesn't put one in my head after he's done looting my body (which is what I would do if I were a bandit, BTW). I come out of the unconscious state to find the bandit took just about everything. Now I'm low on blood, ammo and I'm out of food/water/medicine. Is there really a legitimate reason to keep going when I can just hit the respawn button?

[/quote']

Pretty sure you start the game with nothing too. And I'm also pretty sure the game is supposed to be about surviving against all odds.

But hey, if that's too hard then im sure Rocket can suggest some other games for you :)

[dut 21]

Some people are looking at it the wrong way. It shouldn't be pitched as a 'punishment' for bandits, instead it is a new, interesting and realistic mechanic that may or may not require more effort to code than it is worth.

[imaginationland]

They aren't used in DayZ but bags have hitboxes already and turning them back on might not be that hard. The second step is changing the material so they are bullet resistant instead of bullet proof. Then comes the random item destruction code. Lastly would be item destruction effects; A quick bleeding effect with light brown 'blood' instead of red for cans of drink and food and a spark ricochet effect for everything else.

Bonus: Shooting somebody at the base of their Czech pack and breaking some beans will make it look like they're shitting themselves while they're running away.

[/imaginationland]

[psycho84 0]

Here's an idea. Something that kills two birds with one stone:

So if this damage model were to be adopted' date=' headshots would damage precious gear like NVGs and binocs and whatnot, and have a chance to damage some other gear. Body shots would destroy just about anything. But what about leg shots?

My proposal is to code this in such a way that shooting the legs actually destroys nothing, [i']but leaves the player alive. They could be unconcious and lootable for a time, but they wouldn't automatically be dead.

This would give the bandits a chance to run up and loot what they wanted, and then the player might still have a chance to survive. Bandits win with undamaged loot, and the player wins by having a chance to keep going.

I think the catch here is that shooting someone unconscious has to start counting against humanity just as much as a murder. But other than that I think this idea has a lot of merit.

Yeah the location damage element would be awesome! At the very least your forcing interaction to be closer as sniping from range will carry high gear destruction consequence. It also makes good bandits shine and bad bandits fail.

However, as with most current features in the game, how would everyone feel if initially it was kept super simple. If you are shot, there is a 25% chance an item in your backpack gets destroyed.

Yes yes I know it would be silly to get shot in the legs and a backpack item gets destroyed but I'm just thinking about the poor coders here :P To be honest it might be best to just try the idea in a simple way before spending time making it more complex (like temperature/infection).

What do you guys think?

---

Some people are looking at it the wrong way. It shouldn't be pitched as a 'punishment' for bandits' date=' instead it is a new, interesting and realistic mechanic that may or may not require more effort to code than it is worth.

[imaginationland']

They aren't used in DayZ but bags have hitboxes already and turning them back on might not be that hard. The second step is changing the material so they are bullet resistant instead of bullet proof. Then comes the random item destruction code. Lastly would be item destruction effects; A quick bleeding effect with light brown 'blood' instead of red for cans of drink and food and a spark ricochet effect for everything else.

Bonus: Shooting somebody at the base of their Czech pack and breaking some beans will make it look like they're shitting themselves while they're running away.

[/imaginationland]

Bahahaha

OMG DUDE, YOU'RE LEAKING PASTA SAUCE AND PEPSI!!!

[Giela 4]

I like the idea it might not be perfect but I like the idea of robbing instead of killing some one, they might add in some hands on the back of your head animation if you're chosing to let them rob you and they know you can't shoot them but in order to make this idea work alt-f4 heroes needs to be fixed.

[TheProphecy 33]

Pretty sure you start the game with nothing too. And I'm also pretty sure the game is supposed to be about surviving against all odds.

But hey' date=' if that's too hard then im sure Rocket can suggest some other games for you :)

[/quote']

The gameplay doesn't get more "against all odds" than it does right now, hence the 40 minute average lifespan or whatever it is now. With that in mind, why are you proposing to shift the odds slightly in favor of "survivors" and against "bandits?" I'm using those terms loosely as you can see, because when it comes down to it a person who kills everyone they see is just as much of a survivor as someone who spends most of their time in the wilderness and never kills another player.

I don't need any other games suggested for me as I'm 100% fine with the way "bandits" are currently handled and I'm not trying to nerf banditry in any way.

[psycho84 0]

Pretty sure you start the game with nothing too. And I'm also pretty sure the game is supposed to be about surviving against all odds.

But hey' date=' if that's too hard then im sure Rocket can suggest some other games for you :)

[/quote']

The gameplay doesn't get more "against all odds" than it does right now, hence the 40 minute average lifespan or whatever it is now. With that in mind, why are you proposing to shift the odds slightly in favor of "survivors" and against "bandits?" I'm using those terms loosely as you can see, because when it comes down to it a person who kills everyone they see is just as much of a survivor as someone who spends most of their time in the wilderness and never kills another player.

I don't need any other games suggested for me as I'm 100% fine with the way "bandits" are currently handled and I'm not trying to nerf banditry in any way.

Please, point out where this idea favours survivors over bandits. No go ahead.

Maybe if you think 'Bandit=ShootAllTheThings' I could understand. Heaven forbid we add more then 1 dimension to the game oh lordy no!

[Kogru 0]

Pretty sure you start the game with nothing too. And I'm also pretty sure the game is supposed to be about surviving against all odds.

But hey' date=' if that's too hard then im sure Rocket can suggest some other games for you :)

[/quote']

The gameplay doesn't get more "against all odds" than it does right now, hence the 40 minute average lifespan or whatever it is now. With that in mind, why are you proposing to shift the odds slightly in favor of "survivors" and against "bandits?" I'm using those terms loosely as you can see, because when it comes down to it a person who kills everyone they see is just as much of a survivor as someone who spends most of their time in the wilderness and never kills another player.

I don't need any other games suggested for me as I'm 100% fine with the way "bandits" are currently handled and I'm not trying to nerf banditry in any way.

The problem your having is you use terms such as "nerf" and you think clearly defined play styles exist. First thing you need to do is get this shit out of your head, this isn't WoW, you don't become a bandit and play to a strict defined style and that's it. No one is trying to nerf bandits, as you say.

Weapon damage on being shot is a gameplay suggestion that effects everyone and is trying to promote more diverse player interaction rather than people just shooting eachother, which many other games do infinitely better.

Also current Dayz is piss easy. The average life expectancy thing is broken because most people suicide until they respawn in a preferable area. Or they just run into cherno guns blazing and die over and over again. Pretty easy to see how the stats are messed up isn't it?

[TheProphecy 33]

The problem your having is you use terms such as "nerf" and you think clearly defined play styles exist. First thing you need to do is get this shit out of your head' date=' this isn't WoW, you don't become a bandit and play to a strict defined style and that's it. No one is trying to nerf bandits, as you say.

Weapon damage on being shot is a gameplay suggestion that effects everyone and is trying to promote more diverse player interaction rather than people just shooting eachother, which many other games do infinitely better.

Also current Dayz is piss easy. The average life expectancy thing is broken because most people suicide until they respawn in a preferable area. Or they just run into cherno guns blazing and die over and over again. Pretty easy to see how the stats are messed up isn't it?

[/quote']

This is a sandbox game that allows you to play the game how you want. Someone may prefer to play as the good hearted survivor who is all about teamwork to survive for one life and then go into bandit mode for their next life. BTW, the term "bandit" on this site is usually used in the same context as murderous psychopath.

Again, how is a dice roll on whether or not a piece of gear gets destroyed when you die encouraging diverse player interaction in any way? As I already mentioned, I still wouldn't think twice about killing another player and I highly doubt others with the "kill or be killed" philosophy would think any differently either.

IMO, banditry isn't a real problem right now. One issue we have right now is zombies don't pose that big of a threat. They are easily avoided and if you do aggro some, running to the nearest building and killing them one-by-one is easy. They really only pose a threat in large numbers in an open space. The next issue is the overabundance of high quality loot. All high grade military weapons should only be found in military installations. No more DMR's in deer stands or fire stations. The respawn time for military loot should be at least double that of normal loot as well. Another issue is the world is too static. You know what to expect every time you hit a town. The only variable is whether or not other players will be there. Plenty of suggestions have been brought up to make the world less static, but a couple of the better ideas I've come across were roaming herds of zombies and helicopters dropping off a crates of loot every X amount of time to random locations on the map. Finally, my last issue is with the end game. If you are really geared up, what is there left to do? Right now people seem to be hoarding items in tents before walking to a highly populated area to go on a killing spree before dying themselves. Vehicles and locking down buildings with razor wire are really the only other alternatives. The reduction of high quality loot would partially solve this problem, but I think it makes sense to add something give highly geared players something to strive for. Maybe there could be an area with the best loot that is held down by AI soldiers with superior weapons or something, IDK.

[psycho84 0]

The problem your having is you use terms such as "nerf" and you think clearly defined play styles exist. First thing you need to do is get this shit out of your head' date=' this isn't WoW, you don't become a bandit and play to a strict defined style and that's it. No one is trying to nerf bandits, as you say.

Weapon damage on being shot is a gameplay suggestion that effects everyone and is trying to promote more diverse player interaction rather than people just shooting eachother, which many other games do infinitely better.

Also current Dayz is piss easy. The average life expectancy thing is broken because most people suicide until they respawn in a preferable area. Or they just run into cherno guns blazing and die over and over again. Pretty easy to see how the stats are messed up isn't it?

[/quote']

This is a sandbox game that allows you to play the game how you want. Someone may prefer to play as the good hearted survivor who is all about teamwork to survive for one life and then go into bandit mode for their next life. BTW, the term "bandit" on this site is usually used in the same context as murderous psychopath.

Again, how is a dice roll on whether or not a piece of gear gets destroyed when you die encouraging diverse player interaction in any way? As I already mentioned, I still wouldn't think twice about killing another player and I highly doubt others with the "kill or be killed" philosophy would think any differently either.

IMO, banditry isn't a real problem right now. One issue we have right now is zombies don't pose that big of a threat. They are easily avoided and if you do aggro some, running to the nearest building and killing them one-by-one is easy. They really only pose a threat in large numbers in an open space. The next issue is the overabundance of high quality loot. All high grade military weapons should only be found in military installations. No more DMR's in deer stands or fire stations. The respawn time for military loot should be at least double that of normal loot as well. Another issue is the world is too static. You know what to expect every time you hit a town. The only variable is whether or not other players will be there. Plenty of suggestions have been brought up to make the world less static, but a couple of the better ideas I've come across were roaming herds of zombies and helicopters dropping off a crates of loot every X amount of time to random locations on the map. Finally, my last issue is with the end game. If you are really geared up, what is there left to do? Right now people seem to be hoarding items in tents before walking to a highly populated area to go on a killing spree before dying themselves. Vehicles and locking down buildings with razor wire are really the only other alternatives. The reduction of high quality loot would partially solve this problem, but I think it makes sense to add something give highly geared players something to strive for. Maybe there could be an area with the best loot that is held down by AI soldiers with superior weapons or something, IDK.

Dude... seriously.

Atleast read the whole idea before replying.

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!

You ARE going to think about killing someone if your water and food are flashing red, I guarentee it!