Dear rocket, f**k humanity. Focus on Morality.

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

'Humanity' is abstract, modernist and dialectic. (Simulacrum, even, for you philosophy whores) i.e. It's a structural concept that people have come to agree upon, based on society, religion, culture and all things irrational that resembles a likeness to what we PERCEIVE we are. Thus is completely invalid.

What we experience ingame is both moralist and what we experience as an individiual. Personal and self-afflicting.

e.g. I am shot, therefore I bleed.

Yet. My entire family is dead. The world is in ruin, and my character is perfectly fine with destroying the last traces of humanity? despite the prime motivation for a person to be to reproduce, sustain their legacy and rule. (The will to the power)

If I bleed when I am shot, therefore I should bleed when I am destroying my last chances of survival by killing my brethren.

Minus the minority of psycho and sociopaths (who would have most likely shot themselves in the face during such a chaotic event as an apocalypse) I think you should be looking towards how our individual characters are effected by their actions, not how 'others' percieve them. (i.e. crows circling, 'punishing' them divinely without weapons upon rebirth etc.)

Quite simply, if a character within this dayz universe starts rampantly murdering their only hope of survival (other people) would they not be fuelled by paranoia, anxiety, insomnia etc.? which would effect their ingame experience. Much like any serial killer succumbs to.

I don't think we should punish ingame 'bad guys', because they would exist. But there is a price to pay for being a psychopath, in the same way there is a price to pay for being good-guy-greg.

The possibilties to bring mental state, drug abuse, and all sort of other options are endless.

I'd love to log out thinking "I hope my character doesn't lose his shit and cut his wrists because he'll never have meaningful contact with another human being in his life" as opposed to "I HAZ NO BEANZ =( =("

but that's just something to think about. In a persistent world, people require more than food and shelter. Whole civilizations have collapsed because of philosophical conflict.

[masacrualex 6]

lol another guy who wants the game developed his way.

[rocket 16567]

I'm intrigued by the concepts, they've been touched on elsewhere.

Humanity was chosen over what it was originally called (morality) because morality gave the impression I would cast judgement over your playstyle. And that was certainly not my intention.

[mikyjax 3]

I think humanity should be totally removed as fast as possible.

This variable based on "what kind of person we kill" is not usable in DayZ.

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

if I had the time and effort to make the game my way, believe me I would MasacruAlex!

[edit]

I'm quite chuffed that mr rocket even read this given the sheer volume, that's all i'd like to be able to contribute. I hate having my own ideas hijacked, thus generally avoid this sort of thing.

really what I think is both easiest and most reflective (god forbid.. realistic!) is the personal experience our character has.

we get shot... we feel the cold and get sick... why shouldn't we get severely, mentally fucked up from murdering others?

even trained killers in the military have PTSD. It acts both as a gameplay mechanic, and a real-life reflection of behaviour and health..

[sergio (DayZ) 19]

Interesting idea, I like it.

[CrossShade 4]

Psycho's and sociopaths would have likely shot themselves? Sure.

[kim.bedin@gmail.com 0]

I play with a large group of friends. We have absolutely no moral issue killing anyone who's not on our team.

It's the zombie apocalypse and the faster all the others are dead, the faster we can start rebuilding the world to our liking.

[rocket 16567]

I'm quite chuffed that mr rocket even read this given the sheer volume' date=' that's all i'd like to be able to contribute.

[/quote']

I dedicate half my day to reading this and other forums. I believe the project will only be successful if I remain connected directly to everyone else. Sometimes this is frustrating, for both you and for me. But I guess that is part of it.

we get shot... we feel the cold and get sick... why shouldn't we get severely' date=' mentally fucked up from murdering others?

[/quote']

It's something I've stated I want to explore, but it would have the be subtle. Something for later once we have all this working that we have now.

[igelqott 2]

While i agree,

I think its essential that you get to kill in self-defence and not be punished for it.

How you should make that work, i have no idea.

[Lukio (DayZ) 24]

Imo morale is very subjective and up till now I haven't seen any game or simulation correctly defining rules (because that is what games are about) for morality, because every person, culture, city or community has a different threshold on what is moral / immoral. Its very little black and white with 90% grey in between.

This depends on so many factors that it would be its own simulation.

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

I'm quite chuffed that mr rocket even read this given the sheer volume' date=' that's all i'd like to be able to contribute.

[/quote']

I dedicate half my day to reading this and other forums. I believe the project will only be successful if I remain connected directly to everyone else. Sometimes this is frustrating, for both you and for me. But I guess that is part of it.

You infinitely restore my faith in Dev's. I'm actually considering studying Game theory and programming after seeing what you have done. Either that or Politics, so I can finally assert my Commie Nazi agenda on this failed imprudent earth :P

Psycho's and sociopaths would have likely shot themselves? Sure.

Have you ever been in a psych ward? hint: I have.

They don't carry guns. They generally piss themselves a lot' date=' fuck anything they can, and OD a lot.

They won't be fighting the zombiepocalypse.

I play with a large group of friends. We have absolutely no moral issue killing anyone who's not on our team.

It's the zombie apocalypse and the faster all the others are dead, the faster we can start rebuilding the world to our liking.

That's the thing. The perspective is skewed from being behind the PC screen. Still means you need beanz right? Still need ammo? Social interraction is a huge part of being human. And coincidentally a part of the game that is lacking, and hard to encourage at the moment.

Is there really anything negative that could arise from getting people to work with eachother for a while? would form more friendships, TS clans, etc. Then standoffs, not beach camps.

I have a few friends I tried to get into this that refused to play until they were with me on TS being coddled like babies. (I think that's lame, but let's face it, gamers aren't used to it) And the longevity of DayZ involves getting people to get into it, not drowning them in elitist crap because they have no friends they play only FPS' with.

[pogoman979 4]

yeah i made a thread about this awhile ago but it turned into an essay. The general concept was that each player is initially affected largely by horrific events that they see/do, but the more these things happen the less they are affected by them, until eventually they feel no emotion what so ever.

The effects of psychological distress are the tricky part to implement, but would need to be bad enough to decrease your chance of survival.

[Sminky 5]

Nice idea, vision that occasionaly blurs, and hallucinating other players and zombies for the true evil bandit seems quite fitting.

[Bucket (DayZ) 0]

It's something I've stated I want to explore' date=' but it would have the be subtle. Something for later once we have all this working that we have now.

[/quote']

This just made my day. I totally agree with the OP (although I don't care what we call the system). In my opinion, the balance of the game tilts too easily towards rampant deatmatch over cooperative gameplay. I think it should be tilted the opposite direction, and the best way to deal with it is using realistic incentives and disincentives. A "subtle" solution is ideal -- I don't think we want to make "banditry" an unusable play style. Lots of people enjoy it. I've used one of my "lives" doing it, and while I prefer not playing as a murderer I certainly understand the appeal. However, I believe that indiscriminate killing should involve meaningful consequences. Thanks for keeping an open mind on this, rocket. :)

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

yeah i made a thread about this awhile ago but it turned into an essay. The general concept was that each player is initially affected largely by horrific events that they see/do' date=' but the more these things happen the less they are affected by them, until eventually they feel no emotion what so ever.

The effects of psychological distress are the tricky part to implement, but would need to be bad enough to decrease your chance of survival.

[/quote']

what people don't realise is that the driving force behind any 'hopeless' situation is that OF hope.

that is what DayZ dangles on a stick. I collect beanz. I help people. I shoot twats.

For an invisible notion of hope.

The exact reason why I go to my job, and am friends with the people I am.

None of that shit actually exists. Would make no difference if I woke up tomorrow, had a wank, then stabbed all of my neighbours in the cul de sac.

It's the illusion of it, and dayz has the potential to provide it in buckets. It's just missing the final step. Kind of.. caging the animal if you will.

[kim.bedin@gmail.com 0]

From my experience playing in a large'ish group (6-7 players):

- Most of us are completely new to Arma2 and absolutely crap players (including yours truly)

- We started playing purely for PvE, but had to shift to PvP due to necessity (see below)

- We thought playing in a large group would be a big enough deterrent to keep PvP'ers away from us

- Big mistake, paid for it in blood and beans

- Now we shoot first and ask questions later

- Although we still don't consider ourselves PvP'ers, ridding the world of the human infestation seems a much more worthy cause than ridding it of zombies -- at least zombies are predictable and easy to avoid

[Hawk24 94]

I'd love to log out thinking "I hope my character doesn't lose his shit and cut his wrists because he'll never have meaningful contact with another human being in his life" as opposed to "I HAZ NO BEANZ =( =("

You want your character to be able to commit suicide while being logged off?

That's exactly the same crap as dying of thirst/hunger while not being ingame

Just this time it's only for the "bad people" that have "unimaginable horror" because all the people they killed to survive

What your idea implies is that EVERY character has exactly the same mental stability and breaks down at exactly the same amount of people killed

Or if you would set a random number of kills you would pre-determine what kind of person we are because we can only kill so many before we get psychological problems

Such a great way to buttfuck banditry, just tell them they're insane through a game mechanic and suddenly it will make sense.......

Yet another "I don't want to punish bandits, but lets punish bandits"-thread

[tolk 7]

Interesting concept, I think it would be quite hard to incorporate something into the game that could fairly represent this.

It also doesn't consider group dynamics; i.e. an individual in a group may deem it morally correct to kill an individual of another (or no) group even if they are of the same species, given it promotes the survival and continuation of their own group - the reason behind most wars. Even group dynamics change significantly with group size. Again, all of this would be very hard to represent.

Doesn't mean its not worth thinking about though.

[miqueloz 33]

we get shot... we feel the cold and get sick... why shouldn't we get severely' date=' mentally fucked up from murdering others?

even trained killers in the military have PTSD. It acts both as a gameplay mechanic, and a real-life reflection of behaviour and health..

[/quote']

Because everyone is vulnerable to bullets and sickness. But not everyone will get mentally fucked up from murdering others. The game deciding how your psychology works for you would be extremely annoying.

"Trained killers" is a fancy term, but most people who go to the military are not "killers". Studies show that 1 in 8 get PTSD. And that's out of more or less average, normal people. You'd get a different number if you looked at special operations forces, which tend to suffer extremely low amount of psychological casualties.

Something you have to keep in mind is this: people who would consciously choose to kill other people for their beans would not be your average people. If their mind works like that, they're much less likely to get "PTSD", because they are quite likely what Swank & Marchand, among others, refer to as aggressive psychopaths.

You don't decide to go on a mass-killing spree if you see nightmares for a week about killing a fly.

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

Yet another "I don't want to punish bandits' date=' but lets punish bandits"-thread

[/quote']

A positive action can be undertaken ingame because it requires user interraction, a negative action merely requires complacency or reaction.

morality should definitely extend to both spectrums. If you as a player help people, the irrational murders should take a larger toll. No good-guy character wants to kill, but are quite often forced to and regret it. In the same way a bandit doesn't want to release someone.. but has to because they have them in their sights first.

A serial murderer should suffer less from killing, but in the longer run face a deeper consequence.

Perhaps if you spawned as a Leopard it would make sense, but as a human being?

Persistent world.. characters are symbolically worth more than their 0's and 1's.

More a matter of how to emulate that. Because it really isn't in any game out there. (god help any person who mentions EVE because you will get the mightiest bitch-slapping around)

[tolk 7]

Sort of half related to this; if rocket maintains the humanity system it would be a interesting test to change it so that loss/gain of humanity is based on your current state of being. For example.

If you are hungry, thirsty, have no food or water in your inventory, ill etc. and you shoot someone for supplies - although I wouldn't consider this a humane act - you may be able to justify your decision in your mind (self survival is your prime objective). So you should loose less humanity.

Likewise, if you are hungry, thirsty... and you give your last can of beans to someone else. You should gain a ton of humanity (self sacrifice).

I think it would make the system more interesting and dynamic than the static -x for kill survivor +y for kill zee.

[#BASEDGOD 27]

Why would you be punished for being an evil character?

I shoot you and you die, it's as simple as that. I play with my group of people and everyone else is fair game. I trust the few that I play with 100% and have no qualms about shooting anyone harming me or my fellow banditos.

Why should I be punished for being harsh to other players?

[gusmanak 1]

From what I've read here, all of us have the same goal.

We want to nullify the deathmatch that the game is becoming.

The problem is how can we deter people from shooting on sight? Bandits, sure. But survivors would surely hold fire unless they had to.

So that brings us to this thread. How can we enact consequences upon those who kill, but only those who kill for fun? This is the problem. You could kill in self defense, or kill for survival needs as well... Clearly, most sane people would kill for these two reasons and not murder themselves from nightmares; they would be mentally stable afterwards.

The issue is how can the game tell the difference? There's really no way to incorporate a system that asks the player how they felt when they killed the guy.

So I really don't see any way that this can work. If the game can't detect it, and if it isn't fair for people with different reasons to kill, then I don't see how it can exist!

[Goldstein (DayZ) 46]

Why should I be punished for being harsh to other players?

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but a lot of you really miss the point here.

Your character is starving, and in the cold. You will happily go to lengths ingame to rectify this.

But anything else that impedes your ability to wantonly murder complete strangers is considered a gamebreaking impediment :huh:

killing somebody should be a big deal. it should be a threat to triggering zombies, it should be a threat to wasting ammo, a threat to alerting other bandits, a threat to your own characters mental state.

if you think you're going to survive the zombiepocalypse by shagging jack, joe and zeke, then good luck to you! some of us embrace the false hope of possiblities of factions, alliances, trying to re-establishing order, trade, and all of that.

that's what the future of the game is pegged on, not just DM.

a bit of psychological mindfuckery. not just 'shit, that guy is gonna kill me. may aswell alt-f4'