The lesser of two evils.

[IndyAM 48]

Once again you have used plenty of "awfuls" and "rediculouses" with no substance, All you have contributed is pointless mud flinging.

Why is it I am trying to impose my rules and appoint myself a dictator by posing a question but you are not when rebutting it? The simple point is this, everyone will try and tailor game play to what suits them. The problem is that genuine advances are prevented from seeing the light of day by people with a vested interest in seeing things carry on the way they are, why? Because these people enjoy using exploits and back dooring the system to give themselves an advantage, they don't want to see a level playing ground.

Yes, your only interest is yourself.

There is no level playing field, those with better things, who invest more time, get vehicles and better weapons, and survive longer. Why are you trying to change that?

Your suggestions wouldn't hurt hackers, if anything they'd flourish even more as only they would have high-end weapons and everyone else would have makarovs to be 'fair'. Take your communist zombie game and develop it yourself.

[schrapple 119]

I've said it before and threads like this convince I am right, "The players shouldn't make design choices, and Rocket shouldn't be influanced by them." (Players or their suggestions)

*Disclaimer* I am not saying every suggestion is bad. I am not saying he (Rocket) shouldn't draw from suggestions. But what I am saying is we (the players) make terrible game design choices as a whole. We don't care how it effects anyone else or the core of the game. We are a short sighted lot and should be ignored 99% of the time. (when making suggestions to game design of the game we are playing)

Probably the smartest thing said here for quite some time, game players and current game designers have a bad habit of focus grouping new games into shapeless grey blobs of typicality. I certainly hope the standalone doesn't follow the lines I've suggested, but the current mod is very dysfunctional and needs some issues addressed badly.

[IndyAM 48]

Probably the smartest thing said here for quite some time, game players and current game designers have a bad habit of focus grouping new games into shapeless grey blobs of typicality. I certainly hope the standalone doesn't follow the lines I've suggested, but the current mod is very dysfunctional and needs some issues addressed badly.

Yes it does need some things addressing, however the team are working on the standalone not the mod. Also there are limitations with the engine.

And all of your suggestions are utter shite of the highest order. Please go and bury yourself in sand up to the neck at a local beach and wait for the tide to come in.

No-one will loot your body. Promise.

[schrapple 119]

These are pretty poor ideas, and your retaliatory replies to people contesting your ideas are trite and inaccurate. You claim the first guy was using "catch phrases" in his reply (there were none) and then tell someone else to "not hide under Rocket's skirt" when he cites he wants Rocket's vision to come forth and not your own personal vision. You have absolutely no capacity to take criticism, so I have no idea why you made this thread.

To address the ideas:

Unlootable bodies - As has been stated, not everyone kills for loot. This would primarily punish new/ungeared players trying to gear up. It's also a very petty and childish whine that "people want to kill me for my things :(". Yes, as would happen in a survivor scenario. I understand 100% realism wouldn't be fun (we'd have one life per CD Key, after all). But the core mechanics of this game are "post-apocalyptic survival" and you're talking about tearing out one of the core mechanics of the game -- gathering gear through buildings OR people. This "feature" makes no sense.

Vehicle resets - I agree with your sentiment, but 1 hour is ridiculous. It takes many hours to even repair a vehicle in the first place. No one would spend the better part of a day to get a vehicle going only to lose it after having to log for the night a few hours later. Anti-hoard features are something worth experimenting with, though. In my own custom DayZ mod I'm tweaking I will have something similar to this. I am not sure of the specific mechanic, but I am thinking of having a decay time on the vehicle from the time it's moved away from its initial spawn. Something like 1-2 weeks. Every time you get into the vehicle a message would loosely indicate its state within the decay timer. "This vehicle is in fair condition" "This vehicle is starting to exhibit problems" "This vehicle looks like it could expire any day now". This would at least make repairing vehicles worth it, but always keep people looking for new vehicle spawns.

Tents die when you die - You're solving the wrong problem. Tents as a mechanic aren't a problem. Tents that permit duping and duping in general are a problem. Solve the tent dupe problem and tents are just fine. If you manage to amass tents of decent gear that can't be duped, more power to you. If tents die when you die, then you've removed a large reason for having tents. There isn't enough variance in gear types to require you "rearm at the tents". For food/drink/medical supplies it's rarely more advantageous to run to your tents vs. the nearest town. Again here I understand the sentiment, but you're solving the wrong problem here.

Much of what you have mentioned has already been corrected in the replies. To clear a few things up.

Unlootable bodies isn't an attempt to stop people killing each other for their stuff, it is an attempt to stop people regaining their gear back which makes no sense.

I've already mentioned that vehicles would have to need less repair work when found for this to work well. Also vehicle would become easy come easy go items so it would matter a lot less if you lost your vehicle.

And same again for tents, the problem is people can re-gear in minutes. Having no penalty for death ( by being back at the point your where at before death in a few minutes with no work required) is basically equivalent to being invulnerable, what place does invulnerability and perpetual gear have in a survival sim?

[IndyAM 48]

Unlootable bodies isn't an attempt to stop people killing each other for their stuff, it is an attempt to stop people regaining their gear back which makes no sense.

It makes sense if you are a different person every time you respawn.

I've already mentioned that vehicles would have to need less repair work when found for this to work well. Also vehicle would become easy come easy go items so it would matter a lot less if you lost your vehicle.

Why should you not be able to keep a vehicle from one day to the next?

And same again for tents, the problem is people can re-gear in minutes. Having no penalty for death ( by being back at the point your where at before death in a few minutes with no work required) is basically equivalent to being invulnerable, what place does invulnerability and perpetual gear have in a survival sim?

Ok, you can keep items when you die, what's the big issue with this? Surely anyone can take stuff from your tent, and they can't be hidden well, so you could lose everything. Its about risk vs reward, and invulnerability isn't there because you lose what you are carrying when you die, and it is usually taken by your killer or another person if zeds get you.

Plz answer my Questions.

[schrapple 119]

Yes, your only interest is yourself.

There is no level playing field, those with better things, who invest more time, get vehicles and better weapons, and survive longer. Why are you trying to change that?

Your suggestions wouldn't hurt hackers, if anything they'd flourish even more as only they would have high-end weapons and everyone else would have makarovs to be 'fair'. Take your communist zombie game and develop it yourself.

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to change it to? The people who have survived the longest will still have the best stuff, they will just start from scratch when killed. If they can't take their stuff with them they will be more cautious with their own lives and hopefully only kill others when it will be of some benefit. A survival sim where every member of the human race is trying to eliminate the only other survivors just cause it will be a laugh or they are bored runs counter to reality (yes I know I just used the reality card and don't worry I hate myself for it).

Your solution to hacks is to let everyone cheat to level things out?

[IndyAM 48]

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to change it to? The people who have survived the longest will still have the best stuff, they will just start from scratch when killed. If they can't take their stuff with them they will be more cautious with their own lives and hopefully only kill others when it will be of some benefit. A survival sim where every member of the human race is trying to eliminate the only other survivors just cause it will be a laugh or they are bored runs counter to reality (yes I know I just used the reality card and don't worry I hate myself for it).

Why do you hate yourself for it? People killing people happens, zombies or no zombies. In reality, people are punished, but with no punishment system, more people kill each other to get better gear. You are effectively stopping noobs gearing up off other players?

Your solution to hacks is to let everyone cheat to level things out?

No, you misunderstand. If hackers are killed, they drop stuff. People pick this up, and hackers still have high-end gear, all it means s that high end gear is more popular.

Are you from the US? Why does everyone have the right to bear arms?

Because criminals have guns, so to defend yourself, you need what the criminal has. Guns.

When you have no guns, what do you do? You get killed by criminals with Guns.

When you have guns, you can have a chance of killing the criminals before they kill you.

Same with hackers.

This is not condoning hackers, merely saying that more high-end weapons = easier to counter hackers.

[schrapple 119]

Why should you not be able to keep a vehicle from one day to the next?

You should be able to, but unfortunately being able to do that allows people to hoard leaving no vehicle in play which I'm sure isn't an intended feature.

Ok, you can keep items when you die, what's the big issue with this?

The issue is that death is of no consequence, by creating a penalty people will hopefully only attempt to kill another player if they stand to benefit from it. It will actually give your life a value which is pretty bloody core to a survival sim.

As I said from the beginning (but has been largely ignored) these are not good solutions, they are only less shit then the situation we have now. I put them forward because they are easily implemented band-aids that will address some of the games biggest problems.

[IndyAM 48]

I find vehicles all the time, you want to put in no time and get vehicles instantly. Not going to happen! I have found multiple vehicles each day, you just need to move around the map more!

[venthos 605]

I'm undecided on whether or not preventing people from looting their own bodies would be positive or negative. I think it's a good thing people can loot their own body for two reasons.

[1] Your killer can always hide your body well before you get back. Therefore if you want the "can't loot your own body" mechanic, you can already effect its results in game right now.

[2] If you end up finding your body again, it's kind of a reward for being quick and vigilant navigating the map (other than if you died near a coastal spawn of course). It's not authentic, but rewarding people for "surviving" and navigating to their body is kind of neat.

Kind of in line with #1, I *like* that decision being in the killer's hands. If I killed someone to remove a threat or it was a good honest fight, I'll leave the body. If the guy was being a dick, I'll hide it. For you, you can hide 100% of bodies and make sure nobody gets their loot back.

But there's a problem with your proposed idea in terms of implementation. All it takes is one person (a friend, or a friendly stranger) to go to your body and loot things/drop it on the ground for you. As long as you travel in a pair or more, your buddy can just loot it for you then. Trying to solve that problem would be a rabbit hole. How do you assume who is a "buddy" of the dead person to prevent them from looting, too? How do you prevent a random stranger from helping who was nowhere near the guy at the time? etc. You'd kind of have to pick "everyone can loot" or "nobody can loot" without just making it a temporary inconvenience. This is already in the game as a "Hide the body" or "don't hide the body"

Vehicles should definitely not become easier to get up and running. Vehicles shouldn't an an expectation in DayZ as some sort of "natural progression". It should be a rare luxury. You *should* have to take the better part of a day in some circumstances getting a vehicle going. If you make them too easy to obtain and continue with making it hard to keep, people will use them as disposable transportation. You never commented about my alternate solution. Don't you think that would solve vehicle hoarding while keeping vehicles still rare-ish and something not everyone has?

I have no problem if people can regear in minutes. That means they've [1] Spent the time to ferry loot back to a tent (they would have to have a vehicle or spend a LOT of time 1-2 guns at a time) and [2] that the tents are along the coast (given your "in minutes"). Even if the tents are far away at the edges of the map, that's THAT much longer it took to ferry loot back to the camps. Also, you create another problem. If you actually implemented this, I would just spend a quick $30 (only $15 for standalone) and make a "tent account". Make that player deploy the tents and never log the character in ever other than to deploy a new tent we got. Zero risk of tent loss due to your mechanic. How do you prevent that? Similar conundrum here with determining "tent accounts" as with determining "loot helpers" for preventing you looting your own body.

The only people your mechanics would suitably punish would be a solo survivor/lone wolf. They would be effective against those people. They would be ineffective against any 2+ person team for the aforementioned reasons.

[schrapple 119]

Why do you hate yourself for it? People killing people happens, zombies or no zombies. In reality, people are punished, but with no punishment system, more people kill each other to get better gear. You are effectively stopping noobs gearing up off other players?

No, you misunderstand. If hackers are killed, they drop stuff. People pick this up, and hackers still have high-end gear, all it means s that high end gear is more popular.

Are you from the US? Why does everyone have the right to bear arms?

Because criminals have guns, so to defend yourself, you need what the criminal has. Guns.

When you have no guns, what do you do? You get killed by criminals with Guns.

When you have guns, you can have a chance of killing the criminals before they kill you.

Same with hackers.

This is not condoning hackers, merely saying that more high-end weapons = easier to counter hackers.

I hate myself for using the reality card, it is a shit reason to include something in a game. Please read more carefully.

No I'm not from the USA, but the right to bear arms isn't for protection from criminals. It is based on the idea that the people have the right to defend themselves from government oppression, it is actually a left over from a rule that allowed states to have militias independent of the federal government were the volunteers owned their weapons (but lets not get into that one). Also you've just contradicted yourself and made my point perfectly "If hackers are killed, they drop stuff. People pick this up, and hackers still have high-end gear, all it means s that high end gear is more popular.", If bodies were unlootable you wouldn't have to worry about that would you? two birds one stone.

[IndyAM 48]

I hate myself for using the reality card, it is a shit reason to include something in a game. Please read more carefully.

No I'm not from the USA, but the right to bear arms isn't for protection from criminals. It is based on the idea that the people have the right to defend themselves from government oppression, it is actually a left over from a rule that allowed states to have militias independent of the federal government were the volunteers owned their weapons (but lets not get into that one). Also you've just contradicted yourself and made my point perfectly "If hackers are killed, they drop stuff. People pick this up, and hackers still have high-end gear, all it means s that high end gear is more popular.", If bodies were unlootable you wouldn't have to worry about that would you? two birds one stone.

Realism is a good reason. It's a simulator. i asked you questions 2-3 posts ago and you didn't even answer them. Read more carefully.

Please read the post above about picking stuff up, he got it absolutely spot on.

[Michaelvoodoo25 3120]

No, not a good set of ideas for this game / Mod. You state there are drawbacks, If there are drawbacks are they good ideas to introduce?

they wouldn't fit this game nor would your ideas benefit it. Not meaning to be offensive but they are not realistic points.

[schrapple 119]

Realism is a good reason. It's a simulator. i asked you questions 2-3 posts ago and you didn't even answer them. Read more carefully.

Please read the post above about picking stuff up, he got it absolutely spot on.

Realism is not good, simulation is good. Realism would mean that you would have to stare at a blank screen for hours at a time while your survivor slept. You can only create an approximation of what these things would really be like, a game that followed realism strictly would be unplayable.

As for your question thing, I answered the questions put forward by you in thst post. If you wanted old questions answered from a previous post you must post more carefully.

[IndyAM 48]

Realism is not good, simulation is good. Realism would mean that you would have to stare at a blank screen for hours at a time while your survivor slept. You can only create an approximation of what these things would really be like, a game that followed realism strictly would be unplayable.

As for your question thing, I answered the questions put forward by you in thst post. If you wanted old questions answered from a previous post you must post more carefully.

Please answer the following questions:

http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/94623-the-lesser-of-two-evils/page__st__20#entry889424

Also, you were posting each point on an individual post, please use multi-quote in future.

[Bloodlike 5]

No looting? But then what reason would I have to kill people? I could simply hide in the forest, loot places nobody goes to and never really experience any thrill?

[eviljezza (DayZ) 39]

Personally I'm against those suggestions, but hey atleast your suggesting things for the game which is always a +.

[schrapple 119]

No, not a good set of ideas for this game / Mod. You state there are drawbacks, If there are drawbacks are they good ideas to introduce?

they wouldn't fit this game nor would your ideas benefit it. Not meaning to be offensive but they are not realistic points.

The original post (and the thread title) states that the options are what I see as the lesser of two evils, they are not great solutions and it is not the direction I wish the standalone to go in, but they are quick easy band-aids that would address some major problems for the time being.

[venthos 605]

As for your question thing, I answered the questions put forward by you in thst post. If you wanted old questions answered from a previous post you must post more carefully.

As I've stated, you are extremely poor at taking criticism. Only those who are ill equipped to defend their stance fold their arms and say "Well if you didn't pay attention last time I made my argument, I'm just not going to say anything. So there." If myself or another poster missed a point you made previously, copy/paste and quote it. Show us we're dumb and that it was answered. Make us look like fools in the face of quoted proof and facts. It would only strengthen your position to do so. The "Well if you don't know already I'm not telling you" is just childish and indicates you do not have the solid foundation in your argument that you think you do.

You posted a very prodding thread and you seem incapable of dealing with the resulting replies.

[schrapple 119]

Why should you not be able to keep a vehicle from one day to the next?

You should be able to, but unfortunately being able to do that allows people to hoard leaving no vehicle in play which I'm sure isn't an intended feature.

Ok, you can keep items when you die, what's the big issue with this?

The issue is that death is of no consequence, by creating a penalty people will hopefully only attempt to kill another player if they stand to benefit from it. It will actually give your life a value which is pretty bloody core to a survival sim.

As I said from the beginning (but has been largely ignored) these are not good solutions, they are only less shit then the situation we have now. I put them forward because they are easily implemented band-aids that will address some of the games biggest problems.

I hope you realize I've just had to quote my own post.

[schrapple 119]

As I've stated, you are extremely poor at taking criticism. Only those who are ill equipped to defend their stance fold their arms and say "Well if you didn't pay attention last time I made my argument, I'm just not going to say anything. So there." If myself or another poster missed a point you made previously, copy/paste and quote it. Show us we're dumb and that it was answered. Make us look like fools in the face of quoted proof and facts. It would only strengthen your position to do so. The "Well if you don't know already I'm not telling you" is just childish and indicates you do not have the solid foundation in your argument that you think you do.

You posted a very prodding thread and you seem incapable of dealing with the resulting replies.

Please see above reply, I can't be held accountable because someone has missed something from a previous reply.

[venthos 605]

Why are you only replying to IndyAM and ignoring every post I've made other than my initial one? Do you not like me? :(

EDIT: Ah there you go :D Hi reply!

EDIT2: Aww, but not a reply to my content post from the last page. Just about my post regarding your tolerance of criticism. So close :(

Edited September 24, 2012 by Venthos

[Sula 1205]

Sounds awful, not dying every 4 minutes, and having a place to grab a can of beans and an m1911! (I'm lying). I've never had a tent. I'd love to have a little camp for beans and soda and stuff. I don't usually get the high end stuff, though sometimes I've had great finds at heli crashes. Loved my as50 while I had it. And silenced weapons are great too but I'd like somewhere to grab some beans and soda. Sometimes I've had to run from Kamenka to Berezino before finding a can. Other times they're everywhere. But I'd like to have a camp. Just to try everything out in dayz. :)

Ventos, no one owes you a reply. They don't have to answer you when you're rude enough to criticise them. There's no rule. Try a more tactful approach if you'd like replies.

Schrapple, I don't agree. I don't think the points in your original post do provide quick solutions. They might suit me, for example, but not many other types of players.

And I think one thing that we can all see from this thread is that some of you should spell check your work before replying. Online dictionaries are free! :o

Edited September 24, 2012 by Sula

[schrapple 119]

Why are you only replying to IndyAM and ignoring every post I've made other than my initial one? Do you not like me? :(

EDIT: Ah there you go :D Hi reply!

EDIT2: Aww, but not a reply to my content post from the last page. Just about my post regarding your tolerance of criticism. So close :(

Unlike internet arguments my time in not infinite, if you have a burning question or point you want addressed, Please post it as q brief question and I'll do what I can.

[IndyAM 48]

I hope you realize I've just had to quote my own post.

I hope you realise you DIDN'T use the quote system the first time. That is why I didn't spot your reply.

Your suggestions are a step backwards in terms of simulation, and will make the game less enjoyable, as you will not be able to reap the rewards from your kills.

The tent suggestion is OK, however it is a reward to have been able to successfully get to your tent form the coast, and everything to still be there.

Taking from your own body: It should be your killers choice whether you get to keep your items, and 'Hide Body' works fine for now. Equally, you start as a new character (hence the gender select) so it is not 'your' body but that of a previous survivor.

Also, the dev team are now working on the standalone to be released before christmas, so none of this will be fixed or implemented before that is complete!