A study of Humanity Via The War Z

I bought into an Alpha build of the upcoming game, The War Z. It's like the Day Z, but with multiple maps (after release), community strongholds, a shop system... a lot is in the works.

The first few days of Alpha have been trying at best. I couldn't play the game more than ten minutes the first day (October 15). Now, at the fourth day, we're playing hours at a time.

Those first few minutes were kind of thrilling. The zombies aren't push overs. Sometimes they would be bugged and you'll have to deal with an invisible zombie. Yet and still, it was really fun to look over an expansive landscape.

Then the first few people found their guns. It has been a murder spree ever since.

There is no provocation. A player sees you, he's going to kill you. If you actually have some loot he can get, that's just a bonus. The game is designed to see how long you could last in a zombie outbreak, but when you allow players to kill other players, most netizens will eventually just make the game about that.

But what I find interesting is the justification these people are using. You can see it on the War Z facebook page: "This is supposed to be about survival." "In real life, you'd be dead because you suck." "It's need to stay alive in the game, like it would be in real life."

It's these statements that get me. They are overwhelming. I think people really feel in a post-apoc situation, their best bet would be to kill anyone they see and loot. Even if there's a common, persistent enemy that hunts both them and their 'prey'.

More over, it's not necessary in the game to kill others to survive. Loot respawns. You really only have to be patient and you'll get your own gun, water, or food. People are killing others for the thrill, or more so, to be dicks about it and then are justifying it with pleasant sounding rationalism that breaks apart in seconds. In fact, if said individuals grouped together, they could raid whole towns with food and protection for everyone.

But nope. I'm the lone wolf with the sniper. Picking off Noobs. I am the living embodiment of Darwinism. The problem with this is, we were never Darwin's favorite. We just lucked out with intelligence and tools, and even then we inter-depended each other to make it.

I feel with the more lazy and bloated we became with our devices, the more we learned to trust in them and not the society that got us this far. Lack of morality, lack of conscience, I directly feel it stems from being so far removed from humanity in terms of hiding behind our computers and not having to really consider others.

In short, I think the War Z is what will sadly happen if there's ever a huge apocalyptic event.

captcha: "It's Super Delicious." Captcha, you sick Bastard.

ObsidianJones:
I bought into an Alpha build of the upcoming game, The War Z. It's like the Day Z, but with multiple maps (after release), community strongholds, a shop system... a lot is in the works.

The first few days of Alpha have been trying at best. I couldn't play the game more than ten minutes the first day (October 15). Now, at the fourth day, we're playing hours at a time.

Those first few minutes were kind of thrilling. The zombies aren't push overs. Sometimes they would be bugged and you'll have to deal with an invisible zombie. Yet and still, it was really fun to look over an expansive landscape.

Then the first few people found their guns. It has been a murder spree ever since.

There is no provocation. A player sees you, he's going to kill you. If you actually have some loot he can get, that's just a bonus. The game is designed to see how long you could last in a zombie outbreak, but when you allow players to kill other players, most netizens will eventually just make the game about that.

But what I find interesting is the justification these people are using. You can see it on the War Z facebook page: "This is supposed to be about survival." "In real life, you'd be dead because you suck." "It's need to stay alive in the game, like it would be in real life."

It's these statements that get me. They are overwhelming. I think people really feel in a post-apoc situation, their best bet would be to kill anyone they see and loot. Even if there's a common, persistent enemy that hunts both them and their 'prey'.

More over, it's not necessary in the game to kill others to survive. Loot respawns. You really only have to be patient and you'll get your own gun, water, or food. People are killing others for the thrill, or more so, to be dicks about it and then are justifying it with pleasant sounding rationalism that breaks apart in seconds. In fact, if said individuals grouped together, they could raid whole towns with food and protection for everyone.

But nope. I'm the lone wolf with the sniper. Picking off Noobs. I am the living embodiment of Darwinism. The problem with this is, we were never Darwin's favorite. We just lucked out with intelligence and tools, and even then we inter-depended each other to make it.

I feel with the more lazy and bloated we became with our devices, the more we learned to trust in them and not the society that got us this far. Lack of morality, lack of conscience, I directly feel it stems from being so far removed from humanity in terms of hiding behind our computers and not having to really consider others.

In short, I think the War Z is what will sadly happen if there's ever a huge apocalyptic event.

captcha: "It's Super Delicious." Captcha, you sick Bastard.

Couldn't get far enough in DayZ to figure this out, eh?

My experience with War Z:

Attempt #1: Spawn, move to nearest town, find hat, shot in head near a bus.

Attempt #2: Spawn in similar place, go in different direction, someone comes up behind me and beats me to death with a flashlight.

Attempt #3: Spawn, go to same town, shot in back of the head again.

Attempt #4: Spawn, move north along lake, meet a friend, find a shotgun! Continue north, shot by sniper.

Attempt #5: Spawn, go to town and find lots of loot including: guns, backpack, water. Try and make it to the safe zone, get shot by sniper.

ObsidianJones:
I feel with the more lazy and bloated we became with our devices, the more we learned to trust in them and not the society that got us this far. Lack of morality, lack of conscience, I directly feel it stems from being so far removed from humanity in terms of hiding behind our computers and not having to really consider others.

In short, I think the War Z is what will sadly happen if there's ever a huge apocalyptic event.

I blame it more on people's dark hearts then technology. But other then that, I agree 100%.

If a zombie apocalypse happens, do you really think that guy who shot you in the head is gonna do the same to others in real life? No, probably not because he's gonna piss himself and curl up in a corner while the zombies play skip rope with his lower intestine and make him the next all you can eat buffet. I know that's what would happen to me.

Give people the keys to a PvP world with guns, where they can shoot others without fear of dying, this is gonna happen. It doesn't mean humanity is fucked, it just means they don't really give a shit about the consequences of doing this in a virtual world.

Sassafrass:
If a zombie apocalypse happens, do you really think that guy who shot you in the head is gonna do the same to others in real life? No, probably not because he's gonna piss himself and curl up in a corner while the zombies play skip rope with his lower intestine and make him the next all you can eat buffet. I know that's what would happen to me.

Give people the keys to a PvP world with guns, where they can shoot others without fear of dying, this is gonna happen. It doesn't mean humanity is fucked, it just means they don't really give a shit about the consequences of doing this in a virtual world.

I do think people relishing in acts I personally find abhorrent is an alarming trend. I will not make any excuses for that. However, I do believe in to each their own. There are certainly games out there that caters to it, and by all means have at.

What vexes me is the justification, like I pointed out before. Admit you're going to be a bastard because it's a virtual world. I even got into this game realizing that to be the case. The sheer number of people handwaving their actions because they think it's the only way they would survive in a real situation is what unnerves me.

ObsidianJones:

Sassafrass:
If a zombie apocalypse happens, do you really think that guy who shot you in the head is gonna do the same to others in real life? No, probably not because he's gonna piss himself and curl up in a corner while the zombies play skip rope with his lower intestine and make him the next all you can eat buffet. I know that's what would happen to me.

Give people the keys to a PvP world with guns, where they can shoot others without fear of dying, this is gonna happen. It doesn't mean humanity is fucked, it just means they don't really give a shit about the consequences of doing this in a virtual world.

I do think people relishing in acts I personally find abhorrent is an alarming trend. I will not make any excuses for that. However, I do believe in to each their own. There are certainly games out there that caters to it, and by all means have at.

What vexes me is the justification, like I pointed out before. Admit you're going to be a bastard because it's a virtual world. I even got into this game realizing that to be the case. The sheer number of people handwaving their actions because they think it's the only way they would survive in a real situation is what unnerves me.

Makes a bit of perverse sense, more so in the real world where cans of food don't respawn. Other people would be competitors for limited resources.

Renewable resources would be the best way to build trust, if there are teamups before that, it would be to provide a more solid force to put down anyone who competes for your resources.

ObsidianJones:

Sassafrass:
If a zombie apocalypse happens, do you really think that guy who shot you in the head is gonna do the same to others in real life? No, probably not because he's gonna piss himself and curl up in a corner while the zombies play skip rope with his lower intestine and make him the next all you can eat buffet. I know that's what would happen to me.

Give people the keys to a PvP world with guns, where they can shoot others without fear of dying, this is gonna happen. It doesn't mean humanity is fucked, it just means they don't really give a shit about the consequences of doing this in a virtual world.

I do think people relishing in acts I personally find abhorrent is an alarming trend. I will not make any excuses for that. However, I do believe in to each their own. There are certainly games out there that caters to it, and by all means have at.

What vexes me is the justification, like I pointed out before. Admit you're going to be a bastard because it's a virtual world. I even got into this game realizing that to be the case. The sheer number of people handwaving their actions because they think it's the only way they would survive in a real situation is what unnerves me.

Oh.
I do believe I misread that part of your post completely. <.<

Ignore me then, I kinda jumped the gun and made myself look a tit as I normally do.

I still stand by what I said about them being the first ones to be found dead in a corner while zombies are skipping with their intestines, though. As, ya know...the people with the guns are probably the guys you don't wanna annoy. Nor will they just leave them in a supermarket. :P

At least you were just getting shot. You could have been one of the poor bastards that was taken to a virtual fight club and made to fight to the death for beans.

They're the people you'll wanna worry about come Z-Day.

ObsidianJones:

In short, I think the War Z is what will sadly happen if there's ever a huge apocalyptic event.

What, respawning loot? I don't think so. I think in real life people will recognise interdependency far better than in WarZ

and this is why unrestricted pvp will never work there are just to many people who will grief for the sole reason that they can grief.

OT: in real life Outbreak there would be bandit types and psychopath types that would act this way but overall most folk would try to pull together. Don't take the behavior in this game as the way people would truly act due to human nature we need social interaction to survive and you wont get that shooting everyone you see.

So you've discovered that people are dicks on the internet?

ObsidianJones:

But nope. I'm the lone wolf with the sniper. Picking off Noobs. I am the living embodiment of Darwinism. The problem with this is, we were never Darwin's favorite. We just lucked out with intelligence and tools, and even then we inter-depended each other to make it.

Not to tell you your business, but this seems less like Darwinism to me than Hobbesianism. Granted, I never really believed his account of the State of Nature, especially with the arguments reforming the prisoners' dilemma, but I've actually been rethinking this lately, based largely upon this evidence. If Hobbes lived nowadays, he'd need look no further than people's behaviour to one another online and point at that with a smug expression.

Darks63:

OT: in real life Outbreak there would be bandit types and psychopath types that would act this way but overall most folk would try to pull together.

Especially since people can't respawn and be looted again.

Sassafrass:
If a zombie apocalypse happens, do you really think that guy who shot you in the head is gonna do the same to others in real life? No, probably not because he's gonna piss himself and curl up in a corner while the zombies play skip rope with his lower intestine and make him the next all you can eat buffet. I know that's what would happen to me.

Give people the keys to a PvP world with guns, where they can shoot others without fear of dying, this is gonna happen. It doesn't mean humanity is fucked, it just means they don't really give a shit about the consequences of doing this in a virtual world.

This is what i came here to say . It's a game , no consequence .

Sure in real life there are those that will prey on the weak , but those guys aren't surviving to the end . Then again , it would suck to have your life cut short by that guy . Then again , it's still better than being eaten by zombies .

As for a real life zombie apocalypse , i'm not taking any chances , suicide all the way . I choose how i'm going out .

ObsidianJones:

But nope. I'm the lone wolf with the sniper. Picking off Noobs. I am the living embodiment of Darwinism. The problem with this is, we were never Darwin's favorite. We just lucked out with intelligence and tools, and even then we inter-depended each other to make it.

This all seems rather melodramatic if i'm honest.

You also describe a situation which is very reminiscent of experiences with Day Z. People who also justify it are generally looking for an excuse for something that requires no excuse, the game offers no incentive or mechanics centered around cooperation and so you cannot blame them for it, if you do not like the concept of struggling against other players then do not play them knowing full well that's the 'only' challenge.
What else would you do? Form a trading post so you can pass around your ever increasing stockpiles of weapons? There really isn't very much. Yes some people try to be doctors or security forces but they are very weak attempts to get more out of the system but there's no particular benefit or logic to doing it; the mechanics are too limited. The possibilities for interaction are theoretically limitless but when the options mostly have no meaning exploring them becomes pretty bland after a while.

I say this having tried many of them within Day Z: from bandit, to attempting a shakey form of justice, to helping noobs around when possible, to groups of 2-30 people and ending in joining a trading clan and helping out a few of their meetings as well as gathering and doing 'raids' of territory and tents.

I also think you misunderstand Darwinism. Darwinism is not you shooting some other guy anymore than it could be somebody being struck by lightning or one of thousands of other factors. What you are suggesting is a rather indirect form of artificial selection, which to my understanding is the complete opposite of natural selection and the gradual reinforcement of characteristics within a species.

this is why i think they should make the zombies as threatning as possible. if it starts becomming hard to survive on your own you will have no other choice but to join up with other players

spartandude:
this is why i think they should make the zombies as threatning as possible. if it starts becomming hard to survive on your own you will have no other choice but to join up with other players

Agreed, "the enemy of my enemy" and all that.

While I don't think it'll solve the problem entirely, it'll at least make people think twice about firing a gun in general if they knew they'd almost certainly die from it.

Cavan:

ObsidianJones:

But nope. I'm the lone wolf with the sniper. Picking off Noobs. I am the living embodiment of Darwinism. The problem with this is, we were never Darwin's favorite. We just lucked out with intelligence and tools, and even then we inter-depended each other to make it.

This all seems rather melodramatic if i'm honest.

You also describe a situation which is very reminiscent of experiences with Day Z. People who also justify it are generally looking for an excuse for something that requires no excuse, the game offers no incentive or mechanics centered around cooperation and so you cannot blame them for it, if you do not like the concept of struggling against other players then do not play them knowing full well that's the 'only' challenge.
What else would you do? Form a trading post so you can pass around your ever increasing stockpiles of weapons? There really isn't very much. Yes some people try to be doctors or security forces but they are very weak attempts to get more out of the system but there's no particular benefit or logic to doing it; the mechanics are too limited. The possibilities for interaction are theoretically limitless but when the options mostly have no meaning exploring them becomes pretty bland after a while.

I say this having tried many of them within Day Z: from bandit, to attempting a shakey form of justice, to helping noobs around when possible, to groups of 2-30 people and ending in joining a trading clan and helping out a few of their meetings as well as gathering and doing 'raids' of territory and tents.

I also think you misunderstand Darwinism. Darwinism is not you shooting some other guy anymore than it could be somebody being struck by lightning or one of thousands of other factors. What you are suggesting is a rather indirect form of artificial selection, which to my understanding is the complete opposite of natural selection and the gradual reinforcement of characteristics within a species.

Quoting other people's excuses for why they are doing something does not mean I misunderstand Darwinism. It means I'm Quoting their reasons. Next time, I will put quotes over statements.

When I said "I'm the lone wolf", "I'm the living embodiment...", blah, blah, blah. I was simply taking quotes from people's justification of why they were doing what they were doing. They said they were enforcing survival of the fittest by 'killing noobs'.

And you can be honest all you want. I implore you to. It is why I posted my feelings on the net. However, if something distresses me, it distresses me. I don't see the problem with it, nor expressing my opinion. My frame of mind and personal taste for the situation is one that falls to the negative of the issue. I find nothing wrong with that, but I am sorry if you do.

And is there an incentive if you stock piled everything you need? The War Z had an exploit where certain areas always spawned weapons, the best weapons. They would server jump, going from one character to the next collecting and stock piling these weapons. Then, full up, they would go to the safe zone and just pick off people returning to safe zone, picking off players who now have to return to the safe zone to drop off their important gear... which is a response to their server jump exploit.

Again, I do enjoy pvp. This has been imbalanced for a while. I have negative feelings for it, but I'd get over it because it's simply a game. Once again, the callous justification is what unnerves me.

And before 'welcome to the internet' comes from anyone... if we all dislike it to an extent, why are we apt to just hand wave it?

ObsidianJones:
In short, I think the War Z is what will sadly happen if there's ever a huge apocalyptic event.

Very, very close. The War Z is what would happen if there was an apocalyptic event and you could respawn. In real life there is a much stronger incentive to work together, seeing as if you fail you are dead, no extra lives, no mulligans, no take backs.

Cavan:
I also think you misunderstand Darwinism. Darwinism is not you shooting some other guy anymore than it could be somebody being struck by lightning or one of thousands of other factors. What you are suggesting is a rather indirect form of artificial selection, which to my understanding is the complete opposite of natural selection and the gradual reinforcement of characteristics within a species.

No, that's pretty much natural selection, only with behaviors. You try to work together, you die just like if you are unlucky/not perceptive enough/not smart enough to get a good weapon that you are either lucky with or skilled with.

Artificial selection is controlled breeding, like what we did to wolves to make the bajillion dog breeds currently in existence.

Zen Toombs:

ObsidianJones:
In short, I think the War Z is what will sadly happen if there's ever a huge apocalyptic event.

Very, very close. The War Z is what would happen if there was an apocalyptic event and you could respawn. In real life there is a much stronger incentive to work together, seeing as if you fail you are dead, no extra lives, no mulligans, no take backs.

I don't know about that. I live adjacent to Manhattan. I've had knives pulled out on me, mace aimed at me, and illegal tasers brandished because it was late at night and I happened to be on the same sidewalk that they were, only they weren't paying attention.

I think the 'him or me' way of thinking is very prevalent in our psyches. And I think fear might magnify that. That's human.

doing it for fun, however, and blithely hand waving it away saying it's what you'd do in a real situation is still unseemly to me.

I have had this situation in DayZ a lot as well.....I find it incredibly interesting that as soon as you remove any repercussions of actions against other people...that people instantly go towards killing each other for supplies...
There is the viscous cycle in DayZ where since a lot of people will kill you on the spot, you shoot them first. This continues onward and onward without ever stopping.

Mostly it has come to the conclusion that humans are selfish jerks. Whether it comes to killing each other over supplies, or just killing others in general to get an advantage while giving the other a disadvantage.

AngloDoom:

spartandude:
this is why i think they should make the zombies as threatning as possible. if it starts becomming hard to survive on your own you will have no other choice but to join up with other players

Agreed, "the enemy of my enemy" and all that.

While I don't think it'll solve the problem entirely, it'll at least make people think twice about firing a gun in general if they knew they'd almost certainly die from it.

That might not solve the problem completely, but I'll bet that if all the server's supplies only ever spawned once, and after that everyone had to rely on hunting game, THEN you'd have a lot more co-operation

Squilookle:

AngloDoom:

spartandude:
this is why i think they should make the zombies as threatning as possible. if it starts becomming hard to survive on your own you will have no other choice but to join up with other players

Agreed, "the enemy of my enemy" and all that.

While I don't think it'll solve the problem entirely, it'll at least make people think twice about firing a gun in general if they knew they'd almost certainly die from it.

That might not solve the problem completely, but I'll bet that if all the server's supplies only ever spawned once, and after that everyone had to rely on hunting game, THEN you'd have a lot more co-operation

another interesting mechanic

its free to play but with a credit card attached.

If you kill a person that wasn't hostile toward you it costs you RL money.

Eventually griefers will get tired of paying to grief

People are dicks. Especially online.

Does this say anything about how people would act in real life? I doubt it. In real life you have your best friend, your girlfriend and your mum and dad.

Squilookle:

AngloDoom:

spartandude:
this is why i think they should make the zombies as threatning as possible. if it starts becomming hard to survive on your own you will have no other choice but to join up with other players

Agreed, "the enemy of my enemy" and all that.

While I don't think it'll solve the problem entirely, it'll at least make people think twice about firing a gun in general if they knew they'd almost certainly die from it.

That might not solve the problem completely, but I'll bet that if all the server's supplies only ever spawned once, and after that everyone had to rely on hunting game, THEN you'd have a lot more co-operation

This is probably the best idea. Maybe there should be a system where you can't everything alone . You can't scavenge forever and at one point or another you need the help of others. Sort of like Left 4 Dead.

Unfortunately you didn't die permanently in left 4 dead.

I think the problem is paranoia more than greed. If you know everyone is out to get you, why would you bother letting them shoot at you first? It's a circular argument, but it could be the modus operandi of the average player.

ObsidianJones:
I bought into an Alpha build of the upcoming game, The War Z. It's like the Day Z, but with multiple maps (after release), community strongholds, a shop system... a lot is in the works.

The first few days of Alpha have been trying at best. I couldn't play the game more than ten minutes the first day (October 15). Now, at the fourth day, we're playing hours at a time.

Those first few minutes were kind of thrilling. The zombies aren't push overs. Sometimes they would be bugged and you'll have to deal with an invisible zombie. Yet and still, it was really fun to look over an expansive landscape.

Then the first few people found their guns. It has been a murder spree ever since.

There is no provocation. A player sees you, he's going to kill you. If you actually have some loot he can get, that's just a bonus. The game is designed to see how long you could last in a zombie outbreak, but when you allow players to kill other players, most netizens will eventually just make the game about that.

But what I find interesting is the justification these people are using. You can see it on the War Z facebook page: "This is supposed to be about survival." "In real life, you'd be dead because you suck." "It's need to stay alive in the game, like it would be in real life."

It's these statements that get me. They are overwhelming. I think people really feel in a post-apoc situation, their best bet would be to kill anyone they see and loot. Even if there's a common, persistent enemy that hunts both them and their 'prey'.

More over, it's not necessary in the game to kill others to survive. Loot respawns. You really only have to be patient and you'll get your own gun, water, or food. People are killing others for the thrill, or more so, to be dicks about it and then are justifying it with pleasant sounding rationalism that breaks apart in seconds. In fact, if said individuals grouped together, they could raid whole towns with food and protection for everyone.

But nope. I'm the lone wolf with the sniper. Picking off Noobs. I am the living embodiment of Darwinism. The problem with this is, we were never Darwin's favorite. We just lucked out with intelligence and tools, and even then we inter-depended each other to make it.

I feel with the more lazy and bloated we became with our devices, the more we learned to trust in them and not the society that got us this far. Lack of morality, lack of conscience, I directly feel it stems from being so far removed from humanity in terms of hiding behind our computers and not having to really consider others.

In short, I think the War Z is what will sadly happen if there's ever a huge apocalyptic event.

captcha: "It's Super Delicious." Captcha, you sick Bastard.

Or...its a game, and people treat it like one. Seeing as a type of Post-apocalyptic scenerio, will probobly never come about, I'd say its fine.

However, from a gameplay perspective....ya it sucks. Id love to see people banding together, forming new alliances and societies (which may happen, give the game some time) but, most people arent going to take it THAT seriously. (unfortunatly)

People are bored becasue the missions are not in yet.

and the map areas haven't expanded so things are stale.

with an increase in the map expansion . more towns and locations to loot, longer travel times it will balance out.

waiting 6 hours to see someone to kill will be boring quickly. you will need to actively hunt while they hunt you. camping wont pay off

The one thing I will never understand about this kind of game is that people just kill other people on sight...not exactly a good way to rebuild humanity in that situation, and are people really that idiotic?

Reading about the "pvp" in the game has put me off it entirely. I means it's called The War Z, not Call of Duty...

A study of people through a video game is like a study of people, where everyone has a clothesline attached to there genitals. People are different tin games then they are in real life. Its a separate part of identify with different rules. It has value in its own field and as its own area of research in relation tot he whole of identity and behavior but alone its not a conclusive study of anything. Actually the idea that video game violence does not turn people into psycho killers relies heavily upon the idea of a separation of identity in games and in Real Life. I think you drew a conclusion to fast and simplified things too much. Identify is a fascinating puzzle and one that shouldn't be so bluntly shaped.

A world without consequences is a totally different world than our own. People who play videogames recklessly are not going to just run out into a fight, guns blazing. That would be stupid. Well, alright, they might, but as I said: stupid. Playing in a virtual world does not accurately represent the human psyche. You have to factor in emotions, their physical condition, who they're traveling with, the environment, current supplies...etc. If you were running low on say, medical supplies in a video game, and the easiest way to acquire them was to kill another player-most everyone would do that. Real life? There would still be people who would murder, but less than in a virtual world. Some people can't kill animals. Others get queasy at the sight of blood. If you're desperate, you'll do what you have to do to survive, but other than that...

Don't worry, once the game finally comes out and is open to the whole of the public as a finished product we'll begin seeing clans and all of that social stuff.

It will become far more dangerous and less productive by that time to be on your own as opposed to cooperating.

I also have to agree with Verex above me. Virtual actions do not properly represent physical actions. I've driven on sidewalks in GTAIV just to see how many pedestrians I could throw around. I've laughed as I beat my horse to death in Skyrim. I have laughed like a maniac as I teabag a man's corpse.

I would never dream of doing something as horrific as any of those things in real life. Because in real life they are disgusting and vile acts. In virtual reality, they are just fake actions that have no consequence on the real world.

Squilookle:

AngloDoom:

spartandude:
this is why i think they should make the zombies as threatning as possible. if it starts becomming hard to survive on your own you will have no other choice but to join up with other players

Agreed, "the enemy of my enemy" and all that.

While I don't think it'll solve the problem entirely, it'll at least make people think twice about firing a gun in general if they knew they'd almost certainly die from it.

That might not solve the problem completely, but I'll bet that if all the server's supplies only ever spawned once, and after that everyone had to rely on hunting game, THEN you'd have a lot more co-operation

It's difficult, certainly, since not all people have a mic and expecting them to slowly type out a message of peace, while you're twitching over the trigger, is a bit much. I think it'd be easier to simply stop people shooting each other, rather than trying to get them to team up: like a kind of 'blood on your hands' mechanic where, if you shoot another player, zombies can temporarily detect you from much greater distances and prioritise you.

The problem being that it punishes innocent players for defending themselves against the griefers...it's difficult.

Zen Toombs:
No, that's pretty much natural selection, only with behaviors. You try to work together, you die just like if you are unlucky/not perceptive enough/not smart enough to get a good weapon that you are either lucky with or skilled with.

Artificial selection is controlled breeding, like what we did to wolves to make the bajillion dog breeds currently in existence.

I understand that usually inter-species rivalry is considered part of natural selection.
But being able to skillfully use a weapon and things relating to it are not natural traits, and that people have far different motivations and responses than what can be counted as simply survival. The other person not having a gun could just as easily be a reason not to kill them.
One definition of artificial selection is of the influences people have on other things, I am not really sure in what situations is can occur without people behind it.

My other reason for saying it was because to my understanding natural selection is something that is on a far larger scale than that, and while events must happen in the singular they must also be repeated reliably enough and with similar results for it to have any influence on anything.

ObsidianJones:

Quoting other people's excuses for why they are doing something does not mean I misunderstand Darwinism. It means I'm Quoting their reasons. Next time, I will put quotes over statements.

When I said "I'm the lone wolf", "I'm the living embodiment...", blah, blah, blah. I was simply taking quotes from people's justification of why they were doing what they were doing. They said they were enforcing survival of the fittest by 'killing noobs'.

Okay, that's fine. I have seen lots of people making that connection myself.

ObsidianJones:

And you can be honest all you want. I implore you to. It is why I posted my feelings on the net. However, if something distresses me, it distresses me. I don't see the problem with it, nor expressing my opinion. My frame of mind and personal taste for the situation is one that falls to the negative of the issue. I find nothing wrong with that, but I am sorry if you do.

I was not trying to devalue your entire experience or say that you should not have an opinion or express it, merely saying that if you word it in a rather over the top way it will come across as excessively emotional and maybe a little contrived to polarize response.

ObsidianJones:

And is there an incentive if you stock piled everything you need? The War Z had an exploit where certain areas always spawned weapons, the best weapons. They would server jump, going from one character to the next collecting and stock piling these weapons. Then, full up, they would go to the safe zone and just pick off people returning to safe zone, picking off players who now have to return to the safe zone to drop off their important gear... which is a response to their server jump exploit.

My experience is with Day Z, there is no safe zone in Day Z. There are cunningly hidden tent cities on specific servers full of collected gear. Certain gear spawns in certain areas but it is not a guaranteed chance. The incentive people build out of their game is to get to play with the biggest best guns and then have a backup or 10 in case they die. People exploit server hopping for repeat gear, but that is dangerous and unreliable since you either spawn in on an area somebody else has already looted. Or you have to run 100 yards out of that area and then back to get the area to spawn loot. It is a failing with having many smaller servers rather than one larger one.

Personally I always preferred the easy to find bolt action rifle over everything but the far far rarer DMR and SVD camo, so I lost interest once I had explored the range of human interaction and trudged along the same areas long enough.

ObsidianJones:

Again, I do enjoy pvp. This has been imbalanced for a while. I have negative feelings for it, but I'd get over it because it's simply a game. Once again, the callous justification is what unnerves me.

And before 'welcome to the internet' comes from anyone... if we all dislike it to an extent, why are we apt to just hand wave it?

People do not all dislike it, people do not 'all' dislike anything. Hunting other people is fun, running across other people accidentally and being fast enough to survive is still fun. Putting your knowledge of the area and distances and aiming to the test is fun. I personally do not think it is callous in killing other people simply because you can, those people do not lose much other than their pride and a few hours(to replace gear, not total time alive)at most, and since as I said I feel the justification isn't required, it ceases to be callous in and of itself to me.

I would not say that PvP in Day Z specifically is unbalanced, if you learn the area then lone snipers are usually at a disadvantage because there are only so many effective sniper locations. Most sniper locations are on the edge of forests or high buildings/hills. Coupled with the fact that even an automatic rifle can land shots reliably at 300-400m. I even spent a while advocating that everybody prey on snipers because they're usually a fantastic loot pinata. Organised groups will still have the advantage they always have over you, that's just the way it is, and I can't say that game is unbalanced because organised people have the advantage.

Cavan:

I understand that usually inter-species rivalry is considered part of natural selection.
But being able to skillfully use a weapon and things relating to it are not natural traits, and that people have far different motivations and responses than what can be counted as simply survival. The other person not having a gun could just as easily be a reason not to kill them.
One definition of artificial selection is of the influences people have on other things, I am not really sure in what situations is can occur without people behind it.

My other reason for saying it was because to my understanding natural selection is something that is on a far larger scale than that, and while events must happen in the singular they must also be repeated reliably enough and with similar results for it to have any influence on anything.

Natural selection comes from both the outside of a species (i.e. the deer that is too slow/susceptible to being sick gets et by wolves) and from within a species (i.e. decorative plumage in birds, who is best able to get food and protect what they have, etc)

And I wholly disagree that being able to skillfully use a weapon is "not a natural trait". Yes, being an expert mark is something that takes training, but people do have various amounts of natural skill with certain types of weapons based upon their strength, creativity, and ability to subconsciously preform complex calculus in their head (like throwing/catching a baseball). Also, some people just happen to have the fates/luck on their side.

that people have far different motivations and responses than what can be counted as simply survival. The other person not having a gun could just as easily be a reason not to kill them.

...Yes? I'm not sure what your point was. When I said that "working in a group will get you killed", I was referring to the expressed behavior of Day Z and the War Z players and not how I believe people would respond in reality. In response to your second point though, the general behavior in this game has been said to be "shoot first, loot second, ask questions never". Now, some people have a "don't kill unless" policy, and because few others do then it is more likely to get you killed by other players.

One definition of artificial selection is of the influences people have on other things, I am not really sure in what situations is can occur without people behind it.

Just saying, that definition works as a generality but to use that definition when talking about humanity means that we cannot be affected by natural selection, which is very false. Yes, a baby entirely created by scientists in a laboratory or artificially making certain traits more important would be artificial selection, but my behaviors that result in me being more or less likely to have enough resources to survive and thrive affects my reproduction. If my behaviors significantly reduce my reproduction then I am less likely to pass on my genes, and if my behaviors significantly increase my reproduction, then I am more likely to pass on my genes. In a nutshell, that's half of what natural selection is.

My other reason for saying it was because to my understanding natural selection is something that is on a far larger scale than that, and while events must happen in the singular they must also be repeated reliably enough and with similar results for it to have any influence on anything.

This is actually on a fairly large scale. With everyone I've heard speak on this topic including Yahtzee, almost everyone starts off not trying to kill other players until they have been killed by other players, and they get killed by other players because almost every server has descended into anarchy. It has been repeated with distressing reliability.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked