DayZ Style Bloodlust...

[Baconlovar]

I was thinking about multiplayer and i was thinking about taking prisoners, mugging, that type of thing and then i came to the conclusion of... There is no reason to Not kill someone. Think about it, why bother risking your life from zeds while trying to "persuade" him to give you a generous donation or risk revenge in the future but most importantly them just shooting you when you turn around.

 

The most safe option for you (and annoying for them) is to just kill them, take their stuff and leave. The problem with this is what happens in DayZ, everyone is afraid of everyone and you just kill on sight unless you want to team. (which most of the time ends with a bullet to the head).

 

I think if PZ wants to be a lot more fun in multiplayer and truly unique there needs to be some penalty for killing or some sort of value to a player's life. Otherwise its just death-match.

[unlimited444]

If you shoot them, you'll just attract a horde, but if you persuade them not to fight, you won't make  as much noise. It might end up saving your life

[Dr Gonzo]

With whitelisted servers this won't be so much of an issue I'm pretty sure, although yeah to be fair open public servers will always attract griefers/trolls/bandits/whatever. It's the Internet, after all.

 

I think the possibilities in cooperating with others in PZ, especially with farming and construction, far outweigh the kill on sight mentality prevalent in a lot of other online-survival games.

 

Trust me, it'll be a blast

[Baconlovar]

With whitelisted servers this won't be so much of an issue I'm pretty sure, although yeah to be fair open public servers will always attract griefers/trolls/bandits/whatever. It's the Internet, after all.

 

I think the possibilities in cooperating with others in PZ, especially with farming and construction, far outweigh the kill on sight mentality prevalent in a lot of other online-survival games.

 

Trust me, it'll be a blast

Oh i know itll be awesome! it was just something i was concerned with

[warp]

The devs have mentioned that the Sadistic AI Director may or may not play a part in this in the future.

Punishing bandits with meta events and other factors that will make their lives significantly harder.

[RedKrypton]

It would make sense to just mug people, because shooting a gun in PZ is kinda suicidal. Secondly, a person despite killing hundred of humans in videogames, killing a person IRL has very sever consequences. A lot of soldier have a lot of problems after they come back from a war zone.

So the players character could deal with depression, nightmares, and trigger happiness from it's own.

[Strider]

I was thinking about multiplayer and i was thinking about taking prisoners, mugging, that type of thing and then i came to the conclusion of... There is no reason to Not kill someone. Think about it, why bother risking your life from zeds while trying to "persuade" him to give you a generous donation or risk revenge in the future but most importantly them just shooting you when you turn around.

 

The most safe option for you (and annoying for them) is to just kill them, take their stuff and leave. The problem with this is what happens in DayZ, everyone is afraid of everyone and you just kill on sight unless you want to team. (which most of the time ends with a bullet to the head).

 

I think if PZ wants to be a lot more fun in multiplayer and truly unique there needs to be some penalty for killing or some sort of value to a player's life. Otherwise its just death-match.

 

 

I think the first goal of MP is to coop. I think PvP is secondary. PZ is not a PvP game however it does (or will) allow it for those that are so inclined. The dev's clearly are looking for a PvE game. They're trying to create a 'The Walking Dead' experience.

 

The best way to create confrontation is with NPC's. Human players will rarely roleplay which will just shatter the experience. I don't think I'll *ever* play PZ on a public server. I've played enough DayZ to know how that will end. With a game like PZ which is all about the long-play, when you've invested hours in farming, building and defending your base it would be no fun at all for a small gang of 12 year olds still struggling with puberty to come onto the server and wreck your s**t up.

 

Personally I will play on a closed server with my nephew and we'll role play the apocalypse. If he starts acting out of character and doing stupid things then I'll just find someone on here who shares my vision for how the game is to be played. The problem with PZ survival at the moment is that it's too easy but this will change. If it were more dangerous however, then players would be more inclined to play it safe more in keeping with the zombie lore. 

It would make sense to just mug people, because shooting a gun in PZ is kinda suicidal. Secondly, a person despite killing hundred of humans in videogames, killing a person IRL has very sever consequences. A lot of soldier have a lot of problems after they come back from a war zone.

So the players character could deal with depression, nightmares, and trigger happiness from it's own.

 

This is a brilliant mechanic. You should suggest it in the ideas section. 

[Foxtrot]

It would make sense to just mug people, because shooting a gun in PZ is kinda suicidal. Secondly, a person despite killing hundred of humans in videogames, killing a person IRL has very sever consequences. A lot of soldier have a lot of problems after they come back from a war zone.

So the players character could deal with depression, nightmares, and trigger happiness from it's own.

 

I like where your head is at.  But I am under the assumption that EVERYONE already has PTSD in the zombie apocalypse.

[Lexx]

If people don't want to deal with being randomly mugged/killed in MP they'll just have to play on whitelisted / vetted servers. Otherwise you will just get randoms messing about with you. 

[fluffyzombie]

or you could just go with the clans system where you know what groups are hostile and not.

[Kajin]

I think having a clan system as it stands in most games would be too... Gamey? If there's going to be any group identifying tags, they should be something that updates with character knowledge of the individuals in question. You won't know someone is in a group until you see them interacting with someone else or have some kind of formal relationship with that group.

 

Say, you see a character moving around in the distance. You don't recognize them, and you don't see them cooperating with anyone, so they get an identifier saying unknown group. You then later see them cooperating with someone else, so they get a unique unknown identifier that the two share indicating you don't know what group they're in but they're both together in it. You talk with these people, and if you can convince them to trust you they tell you about their group and some of the people in it. From then on, you can see the unique group identifier over those two people and also over the heads of the people described. Also, say you see one of these two people later on, so you see the unique group identifier over his name, but you don't know he's been kicked out of the group for the murder of a group member.

[Jatta Pake]

I know this is a cheesy suggestion but it could potential level the playing field for player vs. player encounters. What if before PvP combat could occur the attacker needed to "flag" someone with an aggression moodle that restricted PvP for 10 seconds? This would give the target a warning and a chance to escape. Once that happened, PvP could commence without penalty. One could forgo putting an aggression moodle on someone for an ambush but the attacking character would incur psychological penalties.

It wouldn't eliminate "grief" play but it would reduce the "kill on sight" mentality of two players meeting for the first time. Grief players would likely adapt to complex traps that allowed them to hold a target until the timer expired so they could kill with impunity.

An aggression "flag" would have the added benefit of reducing friendly fire. The game would always assume you are targeting a player with an aggression flag over anyone else in the area.

A component of this system would be some sort of tracker that listed all players encountered so you knew who was flagged as aggressive and who wasn't in your game. It would also allow you to remotely flag someone. For example, you meet Mathas and he "aggresses" you. You flee. Some time later you meet Rathlord. He's nice and invites you to his safe house. You politely decline his offer. Later you meet Flach who tells you Mathas and Rathlord are in cahoots. Since you previously met Rath, you pull up your list and flag him with aggression. No point wasting time on this encounter, you want to take out Mathas and Rath next time you see either.

I guess you would also want a way to jointly remove an aggression flag. Maybe you find out Rath and Mathas had a falling out so no use continuing the beef with Rath. Although somewhat game-y the idea would be that most characters would need a psychological justification for aggression - you came on our turf, you stole from me, you killed a friend. Since the game can't model the complexities of these justifications, it would havefer a simulated aspect. A 10 sec delay would model the human need to mentally amp up to fight and potentially kill someone.

[DirectorPr]

There are no repercussions for killing people during a real zombie apocalypse besides bringing zombies on yourself. Shouldn't be too gamey, also it'll come down to the community in the end. If the community by the time when multiplayer hits still feels strongly about PvE we'll see more of that in servers, and also not to mention most people who will be bandits will probably try to shoot their way out of everything, and then they'll die simple as that. I don't think there needs to be vanilla default punishment for being a bandit.

[Austin]

I was thinking maybe a "physco system". It's pretty simple actually. You shoot someone and kill them, you gain "physco points". These points affect your characters basic attributes. An example would be with agility. Maybe you forget a few things and lose some levels in your skills. So now that you just murdered someone, you got so much on your mind that you are extremely clumsy. But, there could be a trait that you could give your character called "Physcopath". This neglects all effects on your character when you kill someone.

 

This is just a thought... 

[Baconlovar]

I know this is a cheesy suggestion but it could potential level the playing field for player vs. player encounters. What if before PvP combat could occur the attacker needed to "flag" someone with an aggression moodle that restricted PvP for 10 seconds? This would give the target a warning and a chance to escape. Once that happened, PvP could commence without penalty. One could forgo putting an aggression moodle on someone for an ambush but the attacking character would incur psychological penalties.

It wouldn't eliminate "grief" play but it would reduce the "kill on sight" mentality of two players meeting for the first time. Grief players would likely adapt to complex traps that allowed them to hold a target until the timer expired so they could kill with impunity.

An aggression "flag" would have the added benefit of reducing friendly fire. The game would always assume you are targeting a player with an aggression flag over anyone else in the area.

A component of this system would be some sort of tracker that listed all players encountered so you knew who was flagged as aggressive and who wasn't in your game. It would also allow you to remotely flag someone. For example, you meet Mathas and he "aggresses" you. You flee. Some time later you meet Rathlord. He's nice and invites you to his safe house. You politely decline his offer. Later you meet Flach who tells you Mathas and Rathlord are in cahoots. Since you previously met Rath, you pull up your list and flag him with aggression. No point wasting time on this encounter, you want to take out Mathas and Rath next time you see either.

I guess you would also want a way to jointly remove an aggression flag. Maybe you find out Rath and Mathas had a falling out so no use continuing the beef with Rath. Although somewhat game-y the idea would be that most characters would need a psychological justification for aggression - you came on our turf, you stole from me, you killed a friend. Since the game can't model the complexities of these justifications, it would havefer a simulated aspect. A 10 sec delay would model the human need to mentally amp up to fight and potentially kill someone.

Its a litte game-y kind of like world of warcraft stlye but it could be a mod

[RedKrypton]

 

It would make sense to just mug people, because shooting a gun in PZ is kinda suicidal. Secondly, a person despite killing hundred of humans in videogames, killing a person IRL has very sever consequences. A lot of soldier have a lot of problems after they come back from a war zone.

So the players character could deal with depression, nightmares, and trigger happiness from it's own.

 

I like where your head is at.  But I am under the assumption that EVERYONE already has PTSD in the zombie apocalypse.

 

Nah, not everone has PTSD in the zombie apocalypse. Some are strong enough, most will have a breakdown, but not at the same time.

Also depression is more of a civilization sickness, because before as a peasent you just had to roll with your shitty position in society and work your ass.

In a survivor economy, it's similar with communism and subsitence economy.

[Eliijahh]

Well yeah many would have psychological issues. Though it is proven that not everyone has a "good guy feedback mechanism".

Look at all the crap human kind has done to itself. Wars, genocide, nuclear bombs, slavery and bla bla bla...Usually if people think they're doing the right thing, that is enough to make them not regret what they've done.

 

So psychological problems could be a way in the game. Though i'd like if a sort of "killed" counter could be tracked for each player. It could be that the first kills are the most problematic ones, then the effects are mitigated. Some sort of skill. People get used to stuff, and killing would be one of them.

 

But I guess the most powerful PVE force, not only in videogames but in real life as well, is the enemy. Make zombies problematic for the survivors enough and BANG you have people gathering together to survive. 

BTW i'd love if there was some sort of "one life for each server" system (optional of course). Each time you're killed in a server you can't play in it till they reset it. In a roleplaying server you gotta create a new character, of course, but in a server where when you're killed you stay dead well, it would force people to think a couple of times more about going gun a-blazing around the city. And it would also make clans and organizations and TRUST a much more valuable commodity.

[Ewok]

Look at all the crap human kind has done to itself. Wars, genocide, nuclear bombs, slavery and bla bla bla...Usually if people think they're doing the right thing, that is enough to make them not regret what they've done.

 

A lot of this is down to 'crowd mentality' though. Individuals are more likely to show empathy and consideration, but crowds (or nations, as in the examples above) make people lose touch with individual morality and fall into the 'well, everyone I know is doing it' sort of attitude.

 

In the zompocalypse, where the crowd is somewhat thinned, there are less people and the individual stands out more.

 

Then again, thinking about it, would those lacking a moral compass be more likely to survive the initial outbreaks, and the first few months after the fall of society. Would there be comparatively more of these people than 'normal' folks around?

[darthdraken]

For me a.closed server for the select players i want to play with. Ie clan or friends.

Then we play from that point. Simples

[LackofCertainty]

...

But I guess the most powerful PVE force, not only in videogames but in real life as well, is the enemy. Make zombies problematic for the survivors enough and BANG you have people gathering together to survive. 

BTW i'd love if there was some sort of "one life for each server" system (optional of course). Each time you're killed in a server you can't play in it till they reset it. In a roleplaying server you gotta create a new character, of course, but in a server where when you're killed you stay dead well, it would force people to think a couple of times more about going gun a-blazing around the city. And it would also make clans and organizations and TRUST a much more valuable commodity.

 

This idea is suggested in every open world PvP enabled game I've ever seen, and it never works.  If the world is very difficult to survive in, then that only increased the desire to kill other people, for several reasons.  

1. People are giant walking piles of loot.

2. Other people scavage too, reducing the supplies you have access to.

3. Killing on sight is safer than trying to co-op. (prisoner's dilemma)

 

The only way to stop rampant PvP is to have penalties on it. (either through game mechanics, or via banning people)

 

My favorite suggestion so far is to put heavy psychological penalties on killing another person.  The devs have said that the focus of this game is PvE.  The most interesting part of PvP enabled games wouldn't be for PvP, it'd be for PvE friendly fire.  I want friendly fire always on, so that I have to hesitate when trying to save a friend.  And when my character accidentally blows his buddy's head off, I want him to spiral into a dark place of depression and probable suicide.

[RedKrypton]

Look at all the crap human kind has done to itself. Wars, genocide, nuclear bombs, slavery and bla bla bla...Usually if people think they're doing the right thing, that is enough to make them not regret what they've done.

A lot of this is down to 'crowd mentality' though. Individuals are more likely to show empathy and consideration, but crowds (or nations, as in the examples above) make people lose touch with individual morality and fall into the 'well, everyone I know is doing it' sort of attitude.

In the zompocalypse, where the crowd is somewhat thinned, there are less people and the individual stands out more.

Then again, thinking about it, would those lacking a moral compass be more likely to survive the initial outbreaks, and the first few months after the fall of society. Would there be comparatively more of these people than 'normal' folks around?

For this a Stalin quote is aproppriated:

"The death of a human is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic."

-Josef Stalin

[RedKrypton]

It would be good to have a system of immobility because of fear.

Normal people aren't stupid or brave enough to try breaking out of gunpoint.

This only happens in movies, TV series and video games because we don't have the notion of fatality.

[Kidlonewolf]

I think there should be a level of psychopathy from killing a few people within so much time from each kill(a few days or weeks?), if you kill to many you might get addicted(gain the disorder). If that happens you might become very unhappy(or worse) without killing another breathing human. Maybe zeds could be a temp fix but nothing like killing a person. Other players would be able to tell by your (random). It would be a sick way to live, but hell its realistic. That might be a way to avoid constant pvp and make it fit in the PZ world..

[LackofCertainty]

It would be good to have a system of immobility because of fear.

Normal people aren't stupid or brave enough to try breaking out of gunpoint.

This only happens in movies, TV series and video games because we don't have the notion of fatality.

 

It also sometimes happens in real life.... and even on CCTV.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10028078/Man-grabs-shotgun-from-armed-robber-in-New-Orleans.html

[Viceroy]

I think making players immobile at gunpoint is the worst possible way of stopping pvp, also, making players addicted to murder is also a horrible way to lessen pvp.

 

I believe that this problem can only be solved by making skills so useful that you would rather be taken captive than shot. As it is already I cannot imagine wasting a level 3 sprinter on "rambo" tactics at gunpoint. With this I reiterate that we need a means of taking someone captive and being able to view the skills a person posesses once captured. This will give even bandits a reason to take at least a few prisoners in raids. Might find a farmer or carpenter or doctor or what-have you that they could use.

 

Largely though this is a matter of the people you choose to play with.